0 IZ ZGODOVINE EPIDEMIJ IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA Iz zgodovine epidemij Uredila: Barbara Šterbenc Svetina Miha Preinfalk Kronika 2022, letnik 70 – Iz zgodovine epidemij (izredna številka) Odgovorni urednik/ Managing editor: dr. Miha Preinfalk (Ljubljana) Tehnična urednica/ Technical editor: mag. Barbara Šterbenc Svetina (Ljubljana) Uredniški odbor/ Editorial board: mag. Sonja Anžič-Kemper (Pforzheim, Nemčija), dr. Aleš Gabrič (Ljubljana), dr. Stane Granda (Ljubljana), dr. Katarina Keber (Ljubljana), dr. Miha Kosi (Ljubljana), dr. Harald Krahwinkler (Celovec), Irena Lačen Benedičič ( Jesenice), dr. Tomaž Lazar (Ljubljana), dr. Hrvoje Petrić (Zagreb), dr. Vlasta Stavbar (Maribor), dr. Imre Szilágy (Budimpešta) in dr. Nadja Terčon (Piran) Za znanstveno korektnost člankov odgovarjajo avtorji. © Kronika Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena: 15. decembra 2021 Prevodi povzetkov/ Translations of Summaries: Manca Gašperšič, Andrej Svetličič - angleščina (English) Lektoriranje/ Language Editor: Rok Janežič UDK/ UDC: Breda Pajsar Uredništvo in uprava/ Address of the editorial board: Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU / Milko Kos Historical Institute at ZRC SAZU Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana Letna naročnina/ Annual subscription: za posameznike/ Individuals 25,00 EUR za študente in upokojence/ Students and Pensioners 18,00 EUR za ustanove/ Institutions 30,00 EUR Izdajatelj/ Publisher: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije Aškerčeva cesta 2 SI–1000 Ljubljana Transakcijski račun/ Bank Account: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije 02010-0012083935 Sofinancirajo/ Financially supported by: Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije/ Slovenian Research Agency ZRC SAZU, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa/ ZRC SAZU, Milko Kos Historical Institute Računalniški prelom/ Typesetting: Medit d.o.o. Tisk/ Printed by: Fotolito Dolenc d.o.o. Revija Kronika je vključena v podatkovno bazo/ Kronika is indexed in: Scopus; Historical Abstracts, ABC-CLIO; MLA International Bibliography; PubMed; ERIH Plus; Bibliography of the History of Art. Na naslovni strani/ Front cover: Hinko Smrekar: Kuga / The Plague, 1917. CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 616-036.22(497.4)(091)(082) IZ zgodovine epidemij / uredila Barbara Šterbenc Svetina, Miha Preinfalk ; [prevodi povzetkov Manca Gašperšič, Andrej Svetličič - angleščina]. - Ljubljana : Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, 2022. - (Kronika, ISSN 0023-4923 ; letn. 70, izredna št.) ISBN 978-961-6777-29-2 COBISS.SI-ID 92720387 Barbara Šterbenc Svetina, Katarina Keber: Predgovor ........................................................................5 Urška Bratož: Preprečevanje črnih koz v Avstrijskem primorju ..............7 Luka Hekič: Poročanje časopisja o epidemiji črnih koz na Kranjskem v letih 1873–1874 ...................................19 Monika Kropej Telban: Pripovedi o kugi in zdravilne prakse proti tej bolezni v ljudskem izročilu ........................................27 Boris Golec: Kužne epidemije na Dolenjskem med izročilom in stvarnostjo .................................................................41 Katarina Keber: Kranjski obrambni mehanizem za zaščito pred prvo epidemijo kolere v Evropi ..............................79 Katarina Keber: Epidemija v šolskih klopeh. Primer španske gripe leta 1918 v osrednjeslovenskem prostoru .......................93 Barbara Šterbenc Svetina, Katarina Keber: Foreword .....................................................................104 Urška Bratož: Smallpox prevention in the Austrian Littoral ..............105 Luka Hekič: Newspaper reporting on the smallpox epidemic in Carniola in 1873–1874 ............................................119 Monika Kropej Telban: Folktales about the Plague and Healing Practices against It in Narrative Folklore ....................................127 Boris Golec: Plague Epidemics in Lower Carniola between Tradition and Reality ...................................................141 Katarina Keber: Carniola’s Defense Mechanism for Protection against the First Cholera Epidemic in Europe ............183 Katarina Keber: Epidemic on school benches. A case of Spanish flu in 1918 central Slovenia ............197 5 2022 IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA PREDGOVOR Po dobrem letu in pol, ko spremljamo razvoj epi- demije novega koronavirusa in njenega obvladovanja, se v slovenski družbi občuti obup nad dolgo trajajo- čo situacijo, ki nam onemogoča živeti življenje, kot smo ga imeli pred epidemijo. V delu prebivalstva se pojavljata nerazumevanje virusa, ki bolezen covid-19 povzroča, in dvom v znanost. Soočamo se z neodo- bravanjem zaščitnih ukrepov in premajhnim dele- žem cepljenega prebivalstva. Ne glede na to, je epidemija z raziskovalnega vi- dika edinstvena priložnost, ko lahko raziskave zgo- dovine zdravstva in epidemij dobijo primerjavo »v neposrednem prenosu, od blizu« z novodobno epi- demijo. Je priložnost za pregled nad tem, kako so se z epidemijami spoprijemale oblasti in družba v pre- teklosti, saj lahko primerjamo ukrepe, odzive ljudi nanje in tudi življenje v postepidemičnem obdobju. Spoznanja teh raziskav nam lahko pomagajo v razu- mevanju sedanjosti. Revija Kronika je redno namenjala pozornost zdravstveno-zgodovinskim temam. Izpostaviti ve- lja nekaj starejših, vidnejših člankov, ki obravnavajo epidemije v zgodovinskem kontekstu. Že v petdese- tih letih 20. stoletja je Majda Smole pisala o kugi na Kranjskem v 16. stoletju, Ema Umek pa o kugi na Štajerskem med letoma 1679 in 1683, v šestdesetih letih je izstopal članek Olge Janša-Zorn o epidemiji kolere na Kranjskem leta 1855, sedemdeseta leta pa je v tem pogledu zaznamoval članek Petra Vodopiv- ca, ki je obravnaval epidemijo črnih koz na Kranj- skem in v Ljubljani v letih 1873 in 1874. Pričujoča izredna številka Kronike je med dru- gim tudi poizkus, da spoznanja stroke o zgodovini epidemij ponudimo širši javnosti v branje in razmi- slek ter tako širimo znanje za boljše spoprijemanje z današnjo epidemijo. V sodelovanju z raziskovalkami in raziskovalci, ki so se podobnih tem že lotevali, so nastale tri nove raziskave, dve obravnavata epidemije črnih koz v 19. stoletju v Avstrijskem Primorju in na Kranjskem, ena pa raziskuje zdravilne prakse v zvezi z epidemijo kuge v ljudskem izročilu. Da bi znanje še podkrepili in zbrali na enem mestu, v pričujoči šte- vilki ponovno objavljamo tri članke, ki so že izšli v Kroniki v preteklih letih in se dotikajo obravnavane tematike – kužnih epidemij na splošno, epidemije kolere in španske gripe. Prav vse tokrat objavljene raziskave pa obravnavajo načine, kako so epidemijo skušale zamejiti oblasti in kako se je z njo spopada- lo prebivalstvo. Ker je tematika tako zelo aktualna v svetovnem merilu, smo se odločili, da prispevke v ce- loti objavimo tudi v angleškem jeziku in svoje znanje posredujemo tujim strokovnjakom ter vsem ostalim, ki bi jih tematika morebiti zanimala. Barbara Šterbenc Svetina in Katarina Keber 7 2022 IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek UDK 616.912:615.37(439.5-13)"18" Prejeto: 8. 7. 2021 Urška Bratož dr., znanstvena sodelavka, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče Koper, Inštitut za zgodovinske študije, Garibaldijeva 1, SI–6000 Koper E-pošta: urska.bratoz@zrs-kp.si Preprečevanje črnih koz v Avstrijskem primorju IZVLEČEK Članek obravnava vakcinacijo kot ključno profilakso pri črnih kozah, ki je bila v habsburških deželah v uporabi od začetka 19. stoletja. Analiza kvantitativnih podatkov za območje Avstrijskega primorja (zlasti Koper in Trst) nakazuje na obsežnost in pogostost epidemij črnih koz tudi v drugi polovici 19. stoletja, kar odpira vprašanja o obsegu izvajanja teh profilaktičnih ukrepov, pa tudi o odzivnosti prebivalstva na pozive k cepljenju. Država je z regulativi skušala doseči čim večjo razširjenost te prakse, vendar pa so jo še dolgo po njeni uvedbi spremljali različni predsodki. Zato so s pozivi prek različnih komunikacijskih kanalov oblasti, Cerkev in znanost skušali prebivalstvo ozavestiti o potrebnosti cepljenja. Ključnega pomena je bila tudi revakcinacija, saj cepljenje z govejimi kozami ni zagotavljalo trajne imunosti, vendar pa je bilo njeno izvajanje še bolj omejeno. KLJUČNE BESEDE črne koze, vakcinacija, Habsburška monarhija, Avstrijsko primorje, Koper, Trst, 19. stoletje ABSTRACT SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL The article discusses vaccination as the key smallpox prophylaxis, used in the Habsburg provinces from the begin- ning of the nineteenth century onward. The analysis of quantitative data for the Austrian Littoral (particularly Koper and Trieste) also points to the scope and frequency of smallpox epidemics in the second half of the nineteenth century, which raises questions concerning the extent to which these prophylactic measures were implemented and the population’s willingness to heed the calls for immunization. By creating a regulatory framework, the state sought to attain the maximum possible prevalence of this practice, which nevertheless remained the target of various prejudices for a long time to come. The authorities, the Church, and scientists therefore sought to heighten the popular aware- ness on the need for immunization through a range of communication channels. Because cowpox vaccination failed to ensure lasting immunity, revaccination was of crucial importance, but its implementation was even more limited. KEY WORDS smallpox, vaccination, Habsburg Monarchy, Austrian Littoral, Koper, Trieste, nineteenth century 8 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–18 2022 Uvod Eno pomembnejših vprašanj, povezano z nalezlji- vimi boleznimi, je tudi v preteklosti bilo, kako jih je mogoče preprečiti. Če so bili pri nekaterih bakterij- skih okužbah (zlasti koleri, pa tudi griži, trebušnem tifusu ipd.) potrebni drugačni ukrepi, na primer v obliki higienizacije, ki je razmah in organizirano obli- ko doživela prav v 19. stoletju, ter socialnih mehaniz- mov, ki so skušali omiliti posledice teh epidemij pri socialno šibkejšem (in hkrati bolezensko bolj ogro- ženem) prebivalstvu, je bila profilaksa pri črnih ko- zah1 tako rekoč vsesplošna in sistemska – cepljenje. Z variolizacijo in nato vakcinacijo, ki sta se uporabljali kot preventiva pri črnih kozah, se začenja zgodovina cepljenja, ko je »praktična medicina prehitela teo- retična odkritja«2 za kar celo stoletje, preden so bili odkriti virusi in se je oblikovala imunologija. V 18. in 19. stoletju je bilo tej bolezni prav z vidika preventive posvečene veliko medicinske pozornosti, tako zaradi razsežnosti njenega pojavljanja kot zaradi ogrožanja zdravja – zlasti otrok, a tudi odraslih. V prispevku3 želimo predstaviti nekatere podat- ke o izvajanju vakcinacije v 19. stoletju ter določene družbene diskurze, ki so v tistem času obkrožali to prakso ter jo umeščali v kontekst skrbi za dobrobit prebivalstva. Obenem skušamo prek drobcev kvan- titativnih podatkov (na primerih Trsta kot ključnega epidemičnega žarišča in bližnjega Kopra, ki je ravno tako občutil posledice) ugotavljati na eni strani obseg pojavljanja variole, na drugi pa domet cepljenja. Epidemije variole v drugi polovici 19. stoletja Dolga navzočnost variole v evropskem prostoru je botrovala temu, da so (črne) koze4 sčasoma posta- 1 Črne koze (variola) so nalezljiva virusna bolezen, ki se pre- naša zlasti s kašljanjem in kihanjem, širi pa se tudi s (tesnej- šim) neposrednim stikom s telesnimi tekočinami in predmeti okuženih. Simptomi vključujejo visoko vročino, utrujenost, splošno slabo počutje, bruhanje ipd., pozneje pa se razvijejo rdeči izpuščaji oziroma mehurčki, najprej po obrazu, rokah in nogah (a tudi na sluznici), nato pa tudi po trupu. V tej fazi je bolnik najbolj kužen. Po nekaj dneh vročina pade, iz- puščaji preidejo v bunčice, nato pa v ugreznjene mehurčke z rdečim kolobarjem. Izpuščaji so sprva napolnjeni s prozorno tekočino, nato postanejo gnojni, po nekaj dneh pa se spre- menijo v kraste, ki se počasi posušijo in odpadejo ter za seboj običajno pustijo opazne brazgotine. Bolnikovo splošno stanje se postopoma izboljša, v nasprotnem primeru pa lahko vodi v smrt (prim. Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 10; Kiple, The Cambridge world history, str. 1008–1012). 2 Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, str. 602. 3 Raziskava je bila delno financirana iz raziskovalnega projekta ARRS J6-1800 ter programa P6-0272. 4 Ljubljanski zdravnik F. V. Lipič je v prvi polovici stoletja opozarjal, da je med prebivalstvom razširjeno enotno poime- novanje tako za goveje, človeške kot neprave koze (oziroma varicello; pri slednji gre za norice) (Lipič, Topografija, str. 209). De Manussi iz tržaške bolnišnice pa je kozavost loče- val – čeprav priznava, da je kategorizacija včasih težka – na »vaioloide« (blažja oblika koz), »vaiolo vero« (prave koze z le del kolektivne zavesti in strahu, posredno pa tudi širših diskurzov o varovanju otroškega zdravja,5 tudi v okviru populacijske politike, ki si je prizadevala za številčno rast prebivalstva. Koze so bile tudi pogosta spremljevalka drugih epidemij, na primer kolere (de- nimo v letih 18736 in 1886)7 in influence – »španske gripe« leta 1918,8 v določenih obdobjih pa so se po- javljale zgolj sporadično. Večja epidemija koz, ki jo je sprožila francosko- -pruska vojna, je izbruhnila v 70. letih 19. stoletja,9 ko je bilo v veliki meri prizadeto prav Avstrijsko pri- morje, zlasti Trst. Ta je, kmalu potem, ko so koze pro- drle v Avstrijo, postal drugo žarišče okužb (umrlih za kozami na 10.000 prebivalcev naj bi bilo kar 72,2,10 v Istri pa 18,3); leto zatem je epidemija dosegla vrh na Goriškem in Gradiščanskem (7,6 umrlih), leta 1874 pa na Kranjskem (51,1) in v nekaterih drugih deže- lah.11 V zadnji četrtini 19. stoletja se je variola v Tr- stu, kakor bomo videli v nadaljevanju, pojavljala v več epidemičnih valovih, z zgolj krajšimi prekinitvami. Ena od podrobnejših dostopnih zdravstvenih sta- tistik, ki priča o pojavljanju bolezni v mestu,12 temelji na podatkih o številu s kozami okuženih pacientov, ki so (bodisi zaradi hude oblike koz bodisi zato, ker niso imeli drugega zatočišča, saj so večinoma pri- hajali iz revnejših mestnih četrti) pomoč poiskali v mestni bolnišnici, in ne zajame celotne slike po- javljanja bolezni med prebivalstvom. Čeprav je bilo prijavljanje koz kot ene od nalezljivih bolezni (po- leg škrlatinke, davice, vsakršnega tifusa, kolere, griže, ošpic ter oslovskega kašlja) po zakonu iz leta 1870 obvezno,13 ostaja dejansko število okuženih vprašlji- vo. Če kljub temu opazujemo numerične podatke, ki so na voljo, sledimo več valom pojavljanja koz samo v zadnji četrtini 19. stoletja. Leta 1872 je bilo število obolelih, ki jih je beležila bolnišnica v Trstu, najvišje dobro razvitimi pustulami ter »gnojno vročino«), »vaiolo confluente« (obilen izpuščaj in zlivajoče se pustule), »vaiolo emorragico« (krvavitve znotraj petehij) ter »purpura vaiolo- sa« (kadar ni papul ali pustul, temveč izjemno veliko petehij na koži ali sluznici, s hudimi krvavitvami v različnih organih), medtem ko varicelle ne uvršča v svojo statistiko (De Manussi, Cenni, str. 14–15). 5 O tem gl. Bratož, Bolni otroci. 6 Tega leta je v Trstu za kolero zbolelo 620, umrlo pa 351 ljudi (Bratož, Bledolična vsiljivka, str. 309). Glede na to, da istega leta izstopa zabeleženih skromnih 10 primerov koz ob sicer izredno visokih številkah (med 300 in 900 primeri) v dveh letih pred in po tem, je mogoče domnevati, da je bil določen delež kozavih bolnikov pripisan obolevnosti s kolero, ker sta se obe okužbi morda prekrivali ali pa je bilo beleženje manj dosledno. 7 Kolera je v Trstu terjala 560 smrtnih žrtev med 900 obolelimi (Bratož, Bledolična vsiljivka, str. 309). 8 Gl. Bratož, Vojna, lakota, str. 27. 9 Kramar, Epidemije, str. 110. 10 A ga ni dosegel niti Dunaj z 52,7 umrlimi na 10.000 prebi- valcev. 11 Prinzing, Epidemics, str. 275. 12 De Manussi, Cenni. 13 Gl. Bratož, Bledolična vsiljivka, str. 189. 9 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–182022 (1.973),14 bolezen pa se je v manjši meri pojavljala še do leta 1880. Do porasta števila okužb je prišlo leta 1884 (867), pri čemer bi lahko konec epidemije določili šele 4 leta kasneje, vmes pa se je kozam pri- družila epidemija kolere (kar bi lahko botrovalo manj vestnemu beleženju okužb). Nov vrh je pojavljanje koz doživelo leta 1893 (597) v skoraj dve leti trajajoči epidemiji. Mortaliteta se je po teh podatkih gibala med 17 in slabimi 30 odstotki.15 Tudi v koprskem okraju je večja epidemija izbruh- nila v letih 1872–73; podatki iz Kopra (čeprav ni na- tančno razvidno, kateri časovni interval je v statistiki zajet)16 pričajo o tem, da je za kozami tedaj zbolelo 314, umrlo pa 44 oseb. Veliko (skupaj s pazniki okrog 20 %) okuženih je bilo zapornikov v kaznilnici, ki pa so bolezen večinoma uspešno preboleli (umrlo jih je 5,8 %). Slaba polovica okuženih je bila kmetov, ki so v mestu prevladovali, med njimi pa je bila umrljivost kar 18,7-odstotna.17 Pojavljanje koz v Kopru v zadnjih desetletjih 19. stoletja, kakor ga beležijo matične knjige, je bilo ome- 14 Drugi podatki, ki jih je dobilo tržaško namestništvo, navajajo naslednje, verjetno realnejše številke; med začetkom oktobra 1871 in začetkom aprila 1873 je bilo v mestu 2.634 okuže- nih, od tega 565 smrtnih primerov (gl. Scartabellati, Visibili nemici, str. 534); prim. še podatke Pinguentini, Cronache, str. 40, ki navaja v celotni epidemiji kar 4.839 obolelih in 893 umrlih, opira pa se na mesečno statistiko, objavljeno v časo- pisu Il Cittadino. Njegova vrednost se sicer tudi bolj sklada z oceno števila umrlih na 10.000 prebivalcev, ki jo podaja Prin- zing, Epidemics, str. 275, medtem ko uradne državne statistike (gl. Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92) samo za leto 1872 navajajo 923, v naslednjem letu pa še 53 smrti zaradi koz. 15 De Manussi, Cenni; prim. Resoconto sanitario. 16 Po registru okuženih (SI PAK KP 7, t. e. 110, 1872, Elen- co dei colpiti, risanati e morti dal vajuolo) se je prvi primer bolezni pojavil že v začetku leta 1872, največji porast števila okužb pa je bil dosežen septembra, vendar so se primeri bo- lezni pojavljali še vse do pomladi naslednjega leta. 17 SI PAK KP 7, t. e. 110, a. e. 2122. jeno na manjše število smrtnih primerov; opazneje se je bolezen pojavila v obdobju od konca leta 1884 do prvih mesecev leta 1885, ko naj bi v Kopru umrlo 6 oseb (od tega 3 otroci), ter od konca 1887 do začetka 1888, ko je umrlo 7 oseb (med njimi 3 otroci).18 Cepljenje skozi regulative in družbene diskurze Zdravje otrok je bilo tako ob pojavu koz deležno še posebne pozornosti; tudi v kontekstu populacijske politike, ki je spodbujala razvoj medicine19 in pro- filakse, v tem okviru pa je bilo v ospredju predvsem preventivno ravnanje,20 s cepljenjem na čelu. Nekate- re razprave21 so izrecno poudarjale, da revščina sicer res vpliva na slabšo reprodukcijo, a da je mogoče na rast prebivalstva posredno vplivati tudi z zdravstve- no preventivo, ki podaljšuje pričakovano življenjsko dobo oziroma zmanjšuje otroško umrljivost, kar je posebej veljalo prav za cepljenje proti kozam. Učinek cepljenja, ki bi se poznal z zamikom, pa bi bilo seveda tudi preživetje večjega števila otrok do tiste starosti 18 ŠAK, mrliška knjiga (Koper), 1875–1899. 19 V okviru tega je treba razumeti tudi izoblikovanje in razvoj pediatrije; gl. Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, str. 342 in 255. 20 Vendar gre dodati, da so – pred znanstvenimi odkritji, ki so vsaki bolezni pripisala specifičnega povzročitelja in etiologi- jo – koze skušali preprečevati podobno kot druge nalezljive bolezni, pri katerih je socialna komponenta veliko izrazitejša (na primer kolera, tifus …), med drugim s higienizacijskimi ukrepi, zlasti v revnejših mestnih četrtih. Tako so tudi iz Trsta leta 1872 poročali, da so koze močno prisotne prav v revnej- ših predelih, kjer so ljudje nevarno nagneteni in se okužba še lažje širi, zato bi bilo treba pripraviti provizorične prostore za njihovo premestitev (Pinguentini, Cronache, str. 37 in 41; prim. Scartabellati, Visibili nemici, str. 533; za Ljubljano gl. Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 96). Ravno tako so v Kopru istega leta veliko pozornosti posvetili čiščenju javnih površin, dez- infekciji in nadzoru nad prostorsko higieno (gl. SI PAK KP 7, t. e. 110, Protocolli della Commissione sanitaria, 1872). 21 Mascherpa, Sulla Vaccinazione, str. 110–113. Tabela 1: Epidemije koz v Trstu po podatkih mestne bolnišnice (vir: De Manussi, Cenni). 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 18 71 18 72 18 73 18 74 18 75 18 76 18 77 18 78 18 79 18 80 18 81 18 82 18 83 18 84 18 85 18 86 18 87 18 88 18 89 18 90 18 91 18 92 18 93 18 94 ozdraveli umrli 10 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–18 2022 (od 15 do 20 let dalje), pri kateri bodo »koristnejši za družbo« oziroma državo (delo, vojska …).22 Prva cepljenja proti kozam (inokulacija/vario- lizacija) so se začela že konec 18. stoletja; pri tem postopku23 so v kožo cepljenega na obeh nadlahteh vnesli virus človeške variole. Cepljenje je kot razsve- tljenski medicinski dosežek24 pomenilo zmagoslavje razuma in človekovo obvladovanje narave ter posle- dično bolezni.25 Variolizacija pa je, čeprav je zagotavljala doživ- ljenjsko imunost, pomenila nevarnost za manifesta- cijo hude ali celo smrtne oblike koz. Obenem je lah- ko bila cepljena oseba med prebolevanjem reakcije na cepljenje tudi sama vir okužbe.26 Kmalu po letu 1798, ko je angleški zdravnik Edward Jenner (po- novno) odkril in izpopolnil vakcinacijo (cepljenje z govejo vakcino),27 so zdravniki postopoma prešli na ta postopek, pri katerem je sledila blažja oblika obole- nja.28 Ta način sicer ni prinesel trajne imunosti, zato je bila – a tega Jenner še ni vedel – po največ 10 letih potrebna revakcinacija. Na Slovenskem je bila vakcinacija uvedena v začetku 19. stoletja – na Kranjskem in Goriškem leta 1801 po zaslugi Vincenca Kerna in Antona Muznika,29 verjetno v istem času pa tudi v Istri.30 Cepljenje proti kozam je podpirala že prva avstrijska oblast,31 obvezno cepljenje pa so na območju Ilirskih provinc uvedli Francozi.32 V času vnovične nadvlade Avstrijskega cesarstva je bilo v 20. letih 19. stoletja 22 Prav tam, str. 103. Tu gre dodati, da koze niso povzročale zgolj preštevilnih smrti, temveč so lahko imele za posledico tudi slepoto ali so človeka kako drugače pohabile, da ni bil dela zmožen. 23 Med svojo zdravniško prakso ga je nazorno opisal zlasti gori- ški zdravnik Anton Muznik, ki je beležil tudi klinična opaža- nja ob izvedbi postopka na nekaj plemiških otrocih (Muznik, Goriško podnebje). O variolizaciji na območju Istre gl. zlasti Cigui, Le origini, str. 265–295. 24 Foucault prav v cepljenju proti kozam vidi nov tip družbeno- -političnega odziva na epidemije. Po njegovem mnenju koze pomenijo »interveniranje« države, zlasti s preventivo, ter po- udarek na varnosti in javnem zdravju (gl. Thacker, The Sha- dows). 25 Prim. Muznik, Goriško podnebje, str. 243; Schrom Dye in Smith, Mother Love. 26 Gl. Kiple, The Cambridge world history, str. 1008–1012; Bori- sov, Zgodovina medicine, str. 245. 27 Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, str. 403–404. 28 V začetku so, tako beremo v italijanskem Slovarju javne higi- ene iz leta 1860, pri vakcinaciji uporabljali metodo z majhnim rezom v kožo (na zgornjem zunanjem delu roke), v katerega so vnesli cepivo, kasneje pa je bila pogosteje v uporabi »punk- tura«, pri kateri so uporabili jekleno lanceto ali zgolj šivanko. Večinoma so aplicirali tekočo vakcino – bodisi z roke na roko bodisi iz živalskih pustul –, suho vakcino (posušene kraste) pa je bilo treba najprej raztopiti v mrzli vodi na stekleni ploščici (Dizionario di igiene pubblica, 1860, str. 785–793). 29 Gl. Zupanič Slavec, Goriški medicus, str. 225; Borisov, Zgo- dovina medicine. 30 Gl. tudi Bratož, Cepljenje proti kozam. 31 Prim. Brisky et al., Introduction of Obligatory Vaccination. 32 Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, str. 405. O cepljenju na območju Istre v času prve avstrijske in francoske nadoblasti gl. Cigui, Misure di profilassi. predpisano cepljenje z navodili,33 urejali pa so ga po- samezni deželni zakoniki. Menjave oblasti so sicer prinesle določene spre- membe pri regulativih in izvajanju te preventivne prakse; tako so se denimo leta 1860 ob birokratizaci- jo postopkov, ki so jo v Lombardiji v prvih desetletjih 19. stoletja uvedle avstrijske oblasti (s čimer naj bi prišlo do tega, da cepljenje ni bilo zgolj filantropska naloga, temveč predvsem breme zdravnikov), kritič- no obregnile te vrstice v »slovarju javnega zdravja«: »Medtem ko je bilo cepljenje v času Kraljevine Italije, ko je bil generalni direktor [pionir vakcinacije v Itali- ji Luigi, op. a.] Sacco, naloga čiste filantropije, ki so si jo pobožne, ugledne osebe vseh slojev, zbrane v deželnih odborih, zadale kot skrbno in versko obveznost ter jo iz- polnile v veliko korist za prebivalstvo, je takoj, ko ji je avstrijska vlada dovolila vstopiti skozi vrata birokra- cije, izgubila ves ugled človekoljubja, zaradi katerega je bila sprejeta in zaželena, saj so morali ti koristni odbori prepustiti mesto občinskim deputacijam. Tako je to po- stalo težko breme za zdravnike cepitelje, na katerih pleča je padla vsa odgovornost ne le za poseg, ki so ga morali opraviti, temveč tudi za njegov izid, ki so ga morali pre- veriti v skoraj vseh primerih.«34 Avstrijski zakon, izdan 13. novembra 1821, je centraliziral prakso cepljenja, saj naj bi bilo to pod nadzorom vlade,35 zdravniki pa so morali za izvaja- nje postopka pridobiti dodatno potrdilo. Da bi lahko oblasti vsaj do določene mere nadzorovale uspešnost te sistematične preventive, je bilo v zakonu med dru- gim določeno, da je koriščenje določenih socialnih mehanizmov pogojeno s cepljenjem; brez tega niso smeli nobenega najdenčka predati dojiljam, ravno tako necepljenih niso sprejemali v sirotišnice ter dru- ge javne in zasebne ustanove. Prav tako je bila vsake- mu, ki ni bil cepljen (ali ni z brazgotinami dokazal, da je prebolel črne koze po naravni poti), odrečena podpora, pokojnina ali štipendija. Dobrodelne usta- nove niso smele dajati podpore tistim staršem, ki niso dokazali prebolelih koz ali predložili potrdila o 33 Obenem naj bi veljalo, da otroci brez dokazila o cepljenju niso imeli vstopa v šole oziroma javne zavode (Zupanič Sla- vec, Mlekarice, str. 146–147; prim. Globočnik, Nauk sloven- skim županom). 34 »Mentre durante il Regno d’Italia, quand’era direttore generale il Sacco, la vaccinazione formava un compito di pura filantropia, che persone pie, ragguardevoli d’ogni classe, raccolte in Comitati provinciali si facevano scrupoloso e religioso obbligo di adempire, e lo adempivano con tanto profitto per la popolazione, appena fu fatta entrare dal Governo austriaco nei cancelli della burocrazia, perdette tutto il prestigio della filantropia che la faceva accetta e desiderata, perche’ quei benefici Comitati dovettero lasciar luogo alle deputazioni comunali. Ond’e’, che essa a questo modo divenne un pesante fardello pei medici vaccinatori, sugli omeri dei quali si fece d’allora in poi cadere tutta la responsabilità non solo dell ’ope- razione che doveano praticare, ma ben anco dell ’esito che doveano essi stessi verificare in quasi tutti i casi« (Dizionario di igiene pubblica, vol. IV, 1860, str. 811–812). 35 Upravljanje cepljenja na regionalni ravni je bilo poverjeno okrožnim glavarstvom (prim. Brisky et al., Introduction, str. 86). 11 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–182022 cepljenju,36 na ta način pa je »država skušala zavaro- vati denar, ki ga je vložila v človeka«.37 Cepljenje proti kozam je še dolgo po uvedbi bu- rilo duhove, zbujalo nelagodje in nezaupanje ter bilo predmet številnih polemik pro et contra. Argumenti proti so izpostavljali nezanesljive učinke cepljenja, predvsem zaradi začetnih neuspelih poskusov ter tveganj in domnevne možnosti okužbe, na primer s sifilisom, šenom ipd., pa tudi moralne, religiozne in druge predsodke zaradi bojazni pred »nenaravnim« poseganjem v človeško telo, ki je bila še izrazitejša po uvedbi postopka vakcinacije.38 Če je ob uvedbi vakcinacije prevladoval strah pred vnosom živalske materije (humanizirana vakci- na) v človeško telo,39 je bila skoraj 70 let kasneje, ko so bile te polemike še posebej žive,40 za nekatere taka rešitev (celo z vakcino, pridobljeno neposredno od goveda) varnejša različica, saj naj bi se tako izognili domnevnemu tveganju za prenos nekaterih človeških bolezni. Posebno bojazen, da bi se sifilis prenesel z najdenčkov, katerih starši so izhajali iz vprašljivih so- cialnih in moralnih okolij (»… Hospici, kjer se skupaj z otroci revščine sprejema rojene iz sramu ... No, ti ubogi izobčenci so tisti, ki morajo priskrbeti cepilno limfo za cepljenje prebivalstva v naši državi«),41 je bila argu- ment tistih polemičnih glasov, ki so kasneje zagovar- jali pridobivanje cepiva neposredno iz pustul kravjih 36 Dizionario di igiene pubblica, vol. IV, 1860, art. 11, 13, 35, 36. 37 Kozinc, Prebolela sem črne koze, str. 12. 38 Nekaj virov (na primer Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, 14. 12. 1861, ter Slomšek, Blaže ino Nežica, str. 166) poroča, da naj bi nekatere matere takoj po cepljenju otrokom izsesale »na- stavlene osepence«, ker so verjele, da je s cepljenjem izničen krst (prim. Bratož, Bolni otroci). Vodopivec za Ljubljano na- vaja, da je prihajalo celo do javnih agitacij proti vakcinaciji (Vodopivec, Črne koze). Cepljenje kot vnos »strupa«, ki zgolj »onesnaži kri« in le malo koristi, še konec stoletja omenja šta- jerski pisec J. Simonič, avtor knjižice o naravnem zdravljenju in podaljšanju življenja (»Snov za koze cepiti je, ali že je vzeta od živali ali od človeka, nevaren strup in to tem bolj ako ima žival ali otrok, od kterega se je vzela snov, razven tega kozenega strupa še druge bolniške snovi v truplu [telesu]« (Simonič, Kakó postanemo stari?, str. 183)). 39 Na to opozarja zgodovinarka N. Durbach, ki je ob opazova- nju antivakcinacijske propagande v britanskem okolju med razlogi za odpor do cepljenja – kot »nenaravne prakse« – identificirala problematičnost nasprotja »človeško/živalsko«. Z vnosom vakcine živalskega izvora v človeško telo naj bi namreč prihajalo do njegove simbolne kontaminacije, zlasti zaradi tesne povezave med telesnim in duševnim zdravjem (Durbach, Smallpox, str. 207–209). Nastanek gibanja, ki je nasprotovalo cepljenju, je »sprožil« John Simon, ki je predse- doval londonskemu zdravstvenemu uradu; ob preučitvi širje- nja koz v petdesetih letih 19. stoletja je namreč predpostavil, da je edini način za zaščito prebivalstva (skupnosti kot celote) vakcinacijska politika z obveznim splošnim cepljenjem otrok, ki je bilo nato v Britaniji tudi uzakonjeno (Bynum, Medicina, str. 470). 40 Ne le v obravnavanem lokalnem kontekstu, temveč tudi glo- balno (gl. Agostoni, Knowledge (https://journals.openediti- on.org/nuevomundo/75397 (25. 11. 2020)). 41 »Ospizi, ove insieme coi figli della miseria sono accolti i parti della vergogna … Ebbene questi poveri reietti sono quelli che devono furnire la linfa vaccinica per innestare la popolazione nel nostro paese!« (La Provincia, 1. 5. 1870, str. 517). koz, saj naj bi humanizirano cepivo s časom izgubilo na učinkovitosti.42 V tem diskurzu se cepljenje deloma prepleta s tedaj perečim socialnim vprašanjem ter z grožnjo, ki naj bi jo za družbo pomenil nižji sloj, množica revežev,43 saj je bila problematizirana raba cepiva, pridobljenega v socialnih ustanovah (najdenišnicah, sirotišnicah).44 Zakon iz leta 1821 je sicer določal, da je treba v najdenišnicah (kot okrožnih ustanovah za vakcinacijo) nenehno izvajati cepljenje proti kozam z roke na roko, s čimer naj bi zagotovili stalni vir ce- piva.45 Nižji sloji naj bi pomenili neposredno zdravstve- no nevarnost46 (a tudi moralno, saj je bila okužba s spolno boleznijo sifilis močno stigmatizirajoča) za širšo družbo, pri čemer naj bi prišlo do domnevne kontaminacije cepljenih z vnosom telesnih tekočin ljudi z družbenega roba47 ter s tem do prenosa bo- lezni najprej na otroka, nato pa tudi na matere in dojilje. Je pa bilo cepljenje še drugače povezano s social- nimi (in drugimi, zlasti javnimi) institucijami. Do- kazilo o cepljenju je bilo, kot že omenjeno, načeloma zahtevano ob vstopu otrok v šole oziroma javne za- vode, tudi če je od njega minilo že več let. Vendar pa so na primer v Trstu leta 1885 ob epidemiji variole48 razmišljali, da bi bilo za šolske otroke smotrno uvesti obvezo, da prinesejo potrdilo o revakcinaciji, ki naj bi jo izvedli na 4 do 5 let.49 Ob ponovnem odprtju šol po koncu epidemije pa je bilo določeno, da je vstop 42 La Provincia, 1. 8. 1872, str. 1633, Giovanni Biaggio. Čeprav so drugi priznavali, da so primeri prenosa sifilisa med po- stopkom vakcinacije redki in naj bi se dogajali kvečjemu ob uporabi cevčic z vprašljivo vsebino neznanega izvora, ne pa v primerih cepljenja z roke na roko, ki jih zdravnik izvaja z vso potrebno pazljivostjo (Ciatto, Il Vaiuolo, str. 29), Ciatto denimo kot dobri dopušča obe različici cepiva, humanizira- nega in živalskega, verjetno pa so v Trstu živalsko cepivo prvič aplicirali med epidemijo leta 1872; gl. Pinguentini, Cronache, str. 37). 43 O različnih kolektivnih strahovih pred reveži – oziroma o revežih kot ekonomski, moralni, zdravstveni in še kakšni grožnji (tudi kot prenašalcih nalezljivih bolezni) – gl. Čeč, Revščina, str. 295. 44 Če vzamemo primer izvedbe cepljenja v Kopru, leta 1835 med evidentiranimi mestnimi otroki najdemo dva najdenčka, vendar je izključeno, da bi bilo cepivo odvzeto od njiju, saj sta bila cepljena med zadnjimi v mestu, poleg tega pa je okrajni zdravnik uporabljal tudi suho vakcino, s katero je najverjet- neje začenjal cepljenje. O skrbi za zdravje najdenčkov, ki je v tržaški najdenišnici že v začetku stoletja vključevala tudi cepljenje, gl. Čeč, »Da bo dobro izbral«, str. 204–205. 45 Dizionario di igiene pubblica, vol. IV, art. 11. 46 Ne nazadnje je pomemben podatek, da so reveži ponekod bedeli pri mrličih v zameno za obrok hrane (gl. Vodopivec, Črne koze), s čimer bi lahko postali prenašalci okužb. 47 Na drugi strani pa je bila v rabi retorika o varovancih so- cialnih ustanov, ki jih izkoriščajo za pridobivanje cepiva za preostalo prebivalstvo, ter o marginalnih družbenih skupinah, ki se jih medicina poslužuje za namene eksperimentiranja. 48 Ob izbruhu epidemije črnih koz v letih 1884 in 1885 je v Tr- stu zbolelo vsaj 1290 ljudi, umrljivost med pacienti bolnišnice pa je dosegla tudi 20 % (gl. De Manussi, Cenni). 49 Pinguentini, Cronache, str. 45. 12 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–18 2022 dovoljen le učencem, mlajšim od 10 let, ki so mora- li pokazati potrdilo o cepljenju, starejši otroci pa so morali dokazati, da so bili cepljeni v zadnjih 5 letih ali da so se udeležili revakcinacije, ki je bila organizi- rana v času izbruha epidemije.50 Cepljenje je bilo v zavodih najlažje nadzorovati in dosledno izvajati, drugače pa je bilo s pritegnitvijo preostalega prebivalstva. Lahko bi pritrdili ugotovi- tvi, da je aparatu cepljenja proti kozam manjkal trden in uniformni pravni in institucionalni okvir, zato je bilo za njegovo učinkovitost potrebno prostovoljno sodelovanje javnosti, kakor ugotavljajo nekatere štu- dije.51 Pri tem je sodelovala heterogena množica ak- terjev, tako predstavnikov laične oblasti kot Cerkve, ter seveda zdravniki, pedagogi idr., in to v času, ko se je oblikovala institucionalizacija in centralizacija države ter javnih zdravstvenih (in socialnih) politik oziroma programov, obenem pa v času nacionalnih konsolidacij.52 Zato je tudi spekter objav, ki na Slo- venskem propagirajo cepljenje v 19. stoletju, tako ši- rok in zajema vse od (poljudno)znanstvenih razprav,53 priročnikov in napotkov do moralno-vzgojnih član- kov, didaktičnega gradiva54 in poučnega mladinskega čtiva.55 Skozi razne kanale, zlasti po časopisju,56 so tako osveščali o pomenu cepljenja proti kozam, tudi v času, ko je bila ta praksa že dodobra utečena57 in izpopolnjena. V nasvetih županom, ki so izšli leta 1880 in v ka- terih je imelo svoje mesto tudi pomembno prizade- vanje za pospeševanje cepljenja s strani lokalnih avto- ritet, lahko preberemo: »Trdili so nekateri v nedavnih časih, da osepnice staviti [cepljenje, op. a.] ne pomaga nič; ali izkušnja uči, da res koristi. Zato naj moder župan po svojej občini to delo pospešuje, kolikor more. Siloma jih zdaj uže ne stavijo nikomur, a vender je povsod zapo- vedano, da ima stavljene vsa mladina občih zavodov in tudi vsi ubožci, katere občina redi, vsi vojaki itd. Župana z duhovniki in učitelji vred bodi skrb, oznaniti in raz- 50 Notificazione del Magistrato civico di Trieste sul vaiolo, 10. september 1885 (https://archiviodistatotrieste.it/documen- to-del-mese/notificazione-del-magistrato-civico-di-trieste- -sul-vaiolo/ (25. 11. 2020)). 51 Agostoni, Knowledge (https://journals.openedition.org/nue- vomundo/75397 (25. 11. 2020)). 52 Prav tam. 53 Na primer Ciattovo predavanje, ki je bilo tudi objavljeno (Ci- atto, Il vaiuolo), ter dela, kot so Kern, Nauk, Robida, Zdravo telo, str. 8. 54 Na primer Vrtec, 1. 3. 1880, 1. 6. 1885. 55 Slomšek, Blaže ino Nežica; Košar, Od telesne reje, … 56 Gl. Slovenski narod, 7. 9. 1877; 8. 9. 1877; Kmetijske in rokodel- ske novice, 25. 2. 1854; 15. 9. 1855; 14. 12. 1861, 7. 1. 1874 itd. 57 V Trstu so ob pojavu epidemije leta 1872 večkrat pozvali k vakcinaciji in revakcinaciji (Pinguentini, Cronache, str. 36). Na Koprskem so tega leta poskrbeli za brezplačno množično cepljenje, ki ga je bilo menda deležnih skoraj 3.000 ljudi (La Provincia, 1. 1. 1873). Splošno cepljenje so izvajali v občinski dvorani, ob sobotah pa na domu župana Cristofora de Bellija, kar je bilo objavljeno v lokalnem časopisju, ki je v tem času že doseglo dokaj širok krog (mestnega) prebivalstva (La Provin- cia, 1. 2. 1872). glasiti, kakor je treba, kdaj in kje se bodo stavile osepnice, da morejo o pravem časi priti vsi, katerim jih je staviti.«58 Tudi v slovenskem tisku, v katerem srečamo debate v zvezi z vakcinacijo, duhovnike, predstavnike oblasti, učitelje in medicinske izvedence59 oziroma nosilce »razumnosti« nasploh pozivajo,60 naj prevzamejo del razglašanja o pomenu cepljenja. Retorika je torej delovala na različnih ravneh, vse od razsvetljenske logike za doseganje blagostanja, ki je od 18. stoletja usmerjala racionalistične in utilita- ristične ukrepe pod okriljem posebne upravne vede, imenovane »dobra policija«.61 Znotraj tega je obstajal koncept zdravstvene policije v smislu upravljanja z javnim zdravjem, ki ga je v svojem znanem obsežnem delu utemeljil Johann Peter Frank.62 Ta je zajel vse vidike človeškega življenja, v navezavi na bolezni, posebej epidemične. Njegova osrednja trditev je bila, da razvoja bolezni ne morejo preprečiti posamezni izvajalci medicinske prakse, temveč lahko to stori le država, ki je za zdravje svojih državljanov dolžna poskrbeti s pomočjo centraliziranega nadzora javne higienske službe in javnega zdravstvenega sistema. S tem pa se je tesno prepletala tudi ideja o številčnem in zdravem prebivalstvu kot temelju močne države,63 skladno s kameralistično idejo o povečevanju držav- nega bogastva in posledični rasti prebivalstva.64 Pre- bivalstvo je tako od razsvetljenstva naprej vse bolj (p)- ostajalo osrednji objekt oblasti. Javni diskurz je tako na različne načine poudarjal zaželeno aktivno preprečevanje bolezni otrok, črne koze pa so bile zaradi dolge prisotnosti v evropskem prostoru že del širšega diskurza o varovanju (otroške- ga) zdravja in preprečevanju bolezni,65 tudi v naveza- vi na nacionalno retoriko oziroma kolektivno odgo- vornost za zdravje mladega prebivalstva. Čeprav v 19. stoletju ta vidik morda ni bil več izrazito v ospredju, je cepljenje zavzemalo pomembno mesto v diskurzu o preventivnem ravnanju, varovanju zdravja in posa- meznikovi odgovornosti do kolektivne dobrobiti. V tem času prihaja do sekularizacije tudi na področju percepcij zdravja in bolezni; čeprav je vloga božje vo- lje še vedno močno navzoča, pa Bog v tem imagina- riju ni več osrednji ali edini zagotovitelj otrokovega zdravja, temveč se vse bolj krepi ideja, da lahko otro- 58 Globočnik, Nauk slovenskim županom, str. 53. 59 Deželni zakoniki iz časa drugega avstrijskega obdobja so zdravnikom, ki bi vestno izvajali cepljenje (kar je bilo mer- jeno predvsem s številom cepljenih oseb), obljubljali denarne nagrade (prim. Brisky et al., Introduction, str. 86). 60 Kern, Nauk, str. 9; prim. Globočnik, Nauk slovenskim župa- nom. 61 Gl. Čeč, Revščina, str. 294. 62 Gl. Bynum, Medicina, str. 473. Frank je med drugim ob epi- demiji leta 1800 uspešno opravil nekaj vakcinacijskih posku- sov na otrocih, ko je Jennerjeva metoda še prodirala v medi- cinski svet (Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, str. 404). 63 Gl. Bratož, Umazane ulice; prim. Borisov, Zgodovina medici- ne, str. 393–394. 64 Hamlin, Commentaries. 65 Več o teh vprašanjih gl. Bratož, Bolni otroci, str. 438–449. 13 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–182022 kovi skrbniki oziroma starši (zlasti mati) z aktivnim prizadevanjem, seveda do določene mere, obvarujejo njegovo zdravje.66 To naj bi se odražalo zlasti v medi- cinski in strokovni literaturi, ki je po eni strani sporo- čala, da je smrt v otroštvu pogosta, celo pričakovana, na drugi pa, da je mogoče z ustrezno nego in preven- tivnim ravnanjem67 zaščititi potomstvo,68 s tem pa je bil s cilji »populacijske politike« del soodgovornosti preložen na starše, ki morajo slediti navodilom obla- sti in znanosti. Vprašati se je mogoče, v kolikšni meri so bila tovrstna prizadevanja uspešna. Zgovorne so številke, nastale med epidemijo ko- nec 19. stoletja v Trstu; šlo je za epidemični val, ki se 66 Schrom Dye in Smith, Mother Love, str. 338. Kljub temu je bila odgovornost staršev za zdravje lastnih otrok razumljena tudi v moralno-religioznem smislu (prim. Košar, Od telesne reje; Kern, Nauk, str. 9). 67 Gl. Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, 14. 12. 1861. 68 Schrom Dye in Smith, Mother Love, str. 345. Čeprav je ključno vprašanje, kakšno in kolikšno občinstvo je tovrstna literatura dosegla, poleg tega pa ni znana recepcija oziroma interpretacija teh sporočil (prav tam, str. 337). je začel konec leta 1892, trajal pa je do leta 1894, v ka- terem je bilo v tržaški bolnišnici zabeleženih 767 s čr- nimi kozami okuženih ljudi. Primarij Alessandro De Manussi,69 ki je natančno beležil statistične podatke, je (sicer ob zavedanju, da tega podatka ni mogel vselej natančno ugotoviti) postregel tudi s številom necep- ljenih med obolelimi. To je bilo še posebej veliko pri najmlajših otrocih (do 5 let) ter pri mladih do 15. leta starosti, podobno je veljalo tudi za delež necepljenih med umrlimi. To lahko do določene mere nakazuje na neredno izvajanje cepljenja oziroma na preslab do- met te prakse.70 Otroci do 10. leta so med obolelimi predstavljali 31,9-odstotni delež, med umrlimi pa je ta starostna skupina zavzemala kar 61,8 %. Sicer pa lahko na učinkovitost cepljenja na po- sreden način kažejo numerični podatki o morbiditeti med že omenjeno koprsko epidemijo v 70. letih 19. 69 De Manussi, Cenni. 70 Nekateri navajajo, da je cepljenje v Trstu običajno doseglo ve- čji del prebivalstva, celo 90 %, saj vsaj od leta 1840 pri ljudeh ni bilo mogoče zaznati večjega odpora do te prakse (Scarta- bellati, Visibili nemici, str. 532). Tabela 2: Podatki iz tržaške epidemije variole 1892–94 (vir: De Manussi, Cenni). 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 30 to 35 35 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 Delež necepljenih med obolelimi po starosti necepljeni ostali 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 30 to 35 35 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 Delež necepljenih med umrlimi po starosti necepljeni ostali 14 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–18 2022 stoletja, ko je bilo med obolelimi (le) 13 % otrok do 10. leta (kar bi lahko bila posledica rednega cepljenja otrok v določenem obdobju), največ pa tistih iz staro- stne skupine med 21. in 40. letom (skoraj 51 % vseh obolelih).71 Kljub temu pa je bila bolezen nevarna še posebej za najmlajše otroke (do 5. leta starosti), na kar kaže razmerje med rekonvalescenti in umrlimi v tej starostni skupini. Dobra polovica teh otrok je namreč za kozami umrla, kar je bil razmeroma visok delež, saj pri drugih starostnih skupinah letaliteta ni presegla 13 %.72 Izvedba (re)vakcinacije v Avstrijskem primorju 19. stoletja V koprskem okraju so v prvi polovici 19. stoletja precej redno izvajali cepljenje proti črnim kozam pri najmlajših otrocih tako v mestih (Koper, Milje) kot v okoliških, zlasti podeželskih krajih73 širom okra- ja, v času neposredne bolezenske grožnje pa je bila izvedena tudi revakcinacija otrok in odraslih. Ta je bila ključnega pomena predvsem zato, ker vakcinaci- ja sama po sebi ni zagotavljala trajne imunosti proti kozam. Leta 1833 je denimo pobudo za revakcina- cijo dal pojav črnih koz v mestni kaznilnici,74 kjer je zdravnik Gian Andrea Manzoni75 naposled cepil 71 Možno je, da ustrezne redne revakcinacije odraslih, ki bi za- gotavljala obnavljanje imunosti pred črnimi kozami, niso iz- vajali, seveda pa je treba upoštevati, da je v tej starostni skupi- ni prevladovalo aktivno prebivalstvo, za katero je bila značilna določena stopnja delovne mobilnosti, torej je del prebivalstva verjetno prišel od drugod. 72 SI PAK KP 7, t. e. 110, a. e. 2122. Gl. tudi Bratož, Cepljenje proti kozam. 73 Kraji, vključeni v vakcinacijo leta 1831 oziroma 1832, so bili Čežarji, Dekani, Osp, Loka, Kubed, Movraž, Topolovec (ozi- roma Gradin), Truške in Koštabona. 74 Prim. Kramar, Epidemije, str. 110. 75 Manzoni (1798–1872) je več desetletij opravljal funkcijo okrajnega zdravnika in je zagreto promoviral cepljenje (za 126 kaznjencev, ki cepljenja niso odklanjali ali jim ga ni onemogočala bolezen. V mestu je bilo tedaj cep- ljenih še 353 ljudi, starih med 4 in 47 let, večinoma odraslih.76 S tem so se začela tudi bolj sistematična množična cepljenja in revakcinacije. Redna ceplje- nja (otrok in necepljenih oseb) so potekala tudi na letni ravni, verjetno na podlagi župnijskih podat- kov o rojstvih v preteklem letu. Zdravnik je najprej opravil testno predvakcinacijo (en teden pred popi- som cepljenih),77 nato izvedel cepljenje, teden dni po njem pa je sledil še pregled rezultatov postopka.78 Ker je okrajni zdravnik s svojim delokrogom pokrival veliko ozemlje, se je v vsaki od 10 podeželskih točk cepljenja vakcinacija odvila v enem dnevu, le v sede- žu okraja, Kopru, kjer je bila ciljna populacija veliko večja, je potekala vsakih 8 dni v obdobju 4 mesecev.79 V koprskem okraju je bilo leta 183580 cepljenih 838 otrok, od tega 192 v mestu Koper,81 ostali pa na kar je bil nekajkrat nagrajen), poleg tega pa je bil eden prvih, ki je v deželi predlagal ter v Kopru tudi izvajal revakcinacijo (SI PAK KP 304, šk. 5, a. e. 9a, Correspondenza officiosa 1854–1857; SI PAK KP 304, a. e. 21). 76 SI PAK KP 304, a. e. 21; gl. tudi Bratož, Cepljenje proti ko- zam. 77 Iz podatkov žal ni razvidno, koliko oseb je cepljenje zajelo in ali je šlo za cepljenje otrok ali (tudi) revakcinacijo odraslih. 78 Že v zakonu iz leta 1821 je bilo določeno, da mora zdravnik v prvih 9 dneh po cepljenju vsaj dvakrat obiskati vsakega cep- ljenega, da se prepriča o ugodnem izidu postopka (Dizionario di igiene pubblica, 1860). A poleg majhne udeležbe na jav- nih cepljenjih je bilo včasih problematično tudi medicinsko ovrednotenje uspešnosti cepljenja, saj naj bi ga nekateri starši cepljenih otrok zavračali (gl. Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, 15. 9. 1855). O tem najbrž govorijo tudi številke, ki jih navaja Rutar, da je v Istri ob cepljenju leta 1893 od 6.932 cepljenih ostalo 31,6 % primerov nepregledanih (Rutar, Samosvoje me- sto Trst, str. 147). 79 SI PAK KP 304, a. e. 21; 1. september 1831 in 10. september 1832. 80 SI PAK KP 304, a. e. 21. 81 23 otrok, ki so bili cepljeni v mestu, je bilo starejših od 1 leta (do 5 let); 6 je bilo dojenčkov, starih le teden ali dva, 163 Tabela 3: Epidemija črnih koz leta 1872 v Kopru (vir: SI PAK KP 7, t. e. 110, a. e. 2122). 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 to 80 81 to 90 Starostna struktura obolelih umrli ozdraveli 15 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–182022 širšem območju okraja. V skoraj 93 % primerih je bila uporabljena tekoča, pri ostalih pa suha vakcina, iz česar bi lahko sklepali, da je zdravnik cepljenje za- čel s suho vakcino, ko še ni imel pustul, iz katerih bi lahko jemal tekoče cepivo. Večina od 42 otrok, ki niso mogli biti cepljeni, je bila za poseg preslabotna ali bolehna, le 6 pa jih na cepljenje ni prišlo. Tudi sredi stoletja je bilo cepljenje redno in sistematično; leta 1850 je bilo cepljenih 1.145 ljudi ter še 44 tistih, ki se niso udeležili cepljenja v preteklem letu. Postopek so izvedli na lokacijah: Koper, Rižana (Lazaret), De- kani, Milje, Osp, Loka, Kubed, Truške in Koštabona, Krkavče, Šmarje, Sv. Anton, Plavje, Ricmanje, Boršt (San Antonio in Bosco), Gročana, Podgorje, Klanec, Pomjan, Marezige, Dolina in Tinjan. Od prejšnjega leta je denimo leta 1852 ostalo necepljenih 57 oseb, na novo cepljenih pa je bilo 1.174 ljudi (skupno to- rej 1.231). Istega leta so izvedli tudi revakcinacijo. V mestu je potekala le v zavodih: v koprski kaznilnici (248 cepljenih), dekliški (31) in deški glavni šoli (50), gimnaziji (36) ter v otroškem vrtcu (27). Poleg tega je širša revakcinacija potekala na podeželju v zgoraj navedenih krajih; skupno je bilo na celotnem obmo- pa je bilo starih od 1 do 11 mesecev. Na podeželju je bilo 98,3 % otrok mlajših od 2 let, najstarejši cepljeni otrok pa je bil star 14 let. čju, ki ga je pokrival delokrog okrajnega zdravnika, revakciniranih 1.956 ljudi.82 V Trstu so ob začetku leta 1872, ko je grozila epi- demija, pozvali k vakcinaciji in revakcinaciji, zaradi slabega odziva pa so maja poziv ponovili.83 Eden od tržaških zdravnikov se je obregnil ob nizke številke iz poročila o vakcinaciji, češ da je okrog 6.000 ceplje- nih le kapljica v morje med populacijo 124.855 ljudi, kolikor jih je štel Trst,84 to bi pomenilo le slabih 5 %, ker pa uradni ukrepi očitno niso zadostovali, so se na lastno pobudo organizirali mestni zdravniki in usta- novili poseben zasebni vakcinacijski odbor.85 Ta je izvajal cepljenje v gledališču Mauroner, tako za plači- lo86 (po 5 goldinarjev na posameznika, 10 pa na dru- žino) kot brezplačno za tiste, ki so prinesli potrdilo 82 SI PAK KP 7, t. e. 19, a. e. 340. 83 Pinguentini, Cronache, str. 36. 84 Scartabellati, Visibili nemici. Seveda pa je bilo odklanjanje cepljenja, ki ni doseglo želenega odziva, problem tudi drugod; za Ljubljano gl. Vodopivec, Črne koze. 85 Verjetno je bila podobna zasebna pobuda zaslužna tudi za cepljenje 2100 ljudi leta 1893, ki jih omenja Rutar (Samosvoje mesto Trst, str. 147), poleg 4494 oseb v okviru javnega ceplje- nja. 86 Gotovo je bil to poleg odpora pomemben dejavnik, ki je marsikoga odvrnil od udeležbe na cepljenju. Morda pa velja pritrditi razmišljanju, da se je pripravljenost ljudi sprejeti cep- ljenje, čeprav se sliši paradoksalno, zmanjšala ob epidemiji zaradi naraščajočega strahu in okrepljenih predsodkov (Scar- tabellati, Visibili nemici, str. 532). Cepljenje otrok na podeželju (Rudolph Carl Gottfried von Geißler: Die Gartenlaube, 1867; Wikimedia Commons). 16 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–18 2022 načelnika svoje četrti, da so do tega upravičeni, cepili pa so tudi na domu. Tudi ta pobuda očitno ni imela velikega dometa, saj naj bi bilo plačnikov za cepljenje 312, brezplačno cepljenih pa le 152 ljudi.87 Zato so razmišljali o strožjih regulativih, ki bi za- povedovali obvezno cepljenje, vendar je splošna druž- bena klima tega časa vse bolj nakazovala, da bo kon- senz glede tega težko doseči. Cenjeni tržaški zdravnik z dolgim stažem Alessandro Goracucchi (sicer pristaš antikontagionistične teorije, ki je zavračala nalezlji- vost nekaterih bolezni, denimo kolere) se je tako uprl predlogu o obvezni (re)vakcinaciji, ker naj bi bilo to v nasprotju z osebno svobodo, zato je predlagal zgolj uporabo prepričevalnih sredstev (na primer ljudske- ga priročnika na temo prednosti vakcinacije).88 Tudi drugod so predlagatelji cepljenja prišli v navzkriž z liberalističnimi in laissez-faire načeli, denimo J. Si- mon v Britaniji,89 ko je bila zaradi njegovega predloga o obvezni vakcinaciji na kocki individualna svoboda izbire v prid kolektivnemu dobremu. Vsekakor ne gre zanikati vpliva, ki so ga tudi na medicinske debate imeli gospodarski interesi; ti so bili posebno močni prav v Trstu kot središču avstrijske pomorske trgovine in so se z liberalistično logiko otepali tako karanten kot tudi vsakršne prisile. Po drugi strani pa tudi ne- skladja znotraj medicinske stroke same niso bila v ko- rist širjenju provakcinacijske propagande, ki je že tako ali tako pogosto naletela na veliko odpora. Zaključek Članek obravnava ključno profilakso pri črnih kozah, tj. zgodnjo obliko cepljenja še pred odkritjem virusov, in sicer vakcinacijo, cepljenje z govejo vak- cino, ki je bila v uporabi od začetka 19. stoletja. Za- znati je mogoče poudarjanje cepljenja kot ukrepa, ki podaljšuje življenjsko dobo (oziroma znižuje otroško umrljivost) ter nasploh prispeva k dobrobiti člove- štva. Država je z regulativi skušala doseči čim večjo razširjenost te prakse, vendar pa so še dolga desetletja po njeni uvedbi to prakso spremljali različni odklo- nilni diskurzi (od strahov pred vnosom tuje materije v telo in strahu pred moralno kontaminacijo do li- beralnih načel o posameznikovi svobodi odločanja). Zato so s pozivi prebivalstvu prek različnih komu- nikacijskih kanalov oblasti, cerkev in stroka skušali širše množice ozavestiti o potrebnosti cepljenja. Podani primeri, predvsem epidemija leta 1872, ki se je iz žarišča v Trstu širila v bližnje okraje (zlasti ko- prskega), nato pa tudi v druge dežele, na primer na Kranjsko, kažejo na obsežnost epidemij črnih koz tudi v drugi polovici 19. stoletja. To lahko priča o pomanjk- ljivem profilaktičnem delovanju, ki je bilo verjetno v veliki meri odvisno tudi od angažmaja zdravstvenih 87 Pinguentini, Cronache, str. 37. 88 Prav tam, str. 39. 89 Bynum, Medicina, str. 470. delavcev na ključnih funkcijah (okrajni zdravniki), od katerih je prihajala pobuda za cepljenje, na drugi stra- ni pa je bila učinkovitost profilakse odvisna od odziv- nosti prebivalstva na številne pozive in prepričevalno retoriko, vendar je ta vidik še najmanj raziskan. Podrobnejše vakcinacijske evidence v koprskem okraju pričajo o sistematični izvedbi cepljenja tako v mestih kot na podeželju, kjer je bilo še posebej do- sledno izvajano cepljenje novorojenih otrok. Prvo vakcinacijo otrok so sicer izvajali redno in sistema- tično, splošne revakcinacije prebivalstva pa zlasti ob grožnjah epidemij. Domet slednjih je bil je bil veliko bolj vprašljiv (to med obravnavanimi podatki potrju- je tudi visok delež obolelih pri nekaterih starostnih skupinah mladih in starejših, ki so sicer bili cepljeni, a najverjetneje samo enkrat, v otroštvu). Vendar pa bi bila ravno revakcinacija, pri kateri so bili tudi javni pozivi različnih avtoritet še najbolj nemočni, nujna za vzdrževanje imunosti prebivalstva, saj je cepivo učinkovitost izgubilo najkasneje v desetih letih. VIRI IN LITERATURA ARHIVSKI VIRI SI PAK KP – Pokrajinski arhiv Koper PAK KP 7, Občina Koper PAK KP 304, Družina Manzoni ŠAK – Škofijski arhiv Koper ŠAK, mrliška knjiga (Koper), 1847–1874 ŠAK, mrliška knjiga (Koper), 1875–1899 ČASOPISI Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, 1854, 1855, 1861, 1874. La Provincia, 1870, 1872, 1873. Slovenski narod, 1877. Vrtec, 1880, 1885. LITERATURA IN OBJAVLJENI VIRI Borisov, Peter: Zgodovina medicine: poskus sinteze me- dicinske misli. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1985. Bratož [Železnik], Urška: Bolni otroci in starševske skrbi: odnos do otroškega zdravja na primeru preprečevanja koz v 19. stol. Zgodovina otroštva (ur. Aida Škoro Babić, Mateja Jeraj, Matevž Ko- šir, Bojan Balkovec). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovin- skih društev Slovenije, 2012, str. 438–449. Bratož [Železnik], Urška: Cepljenje proti kozam v koprskem okraju v 30. letih 19. stoletja. Acta medi- co-historica Adriatica 12, 2014, št. 2, str. 259–274. Bratož [Železnik], Urška: Umazane ulice, nezrelo sadje in kužni hlapi: kaj imajo skupnega policija, zdravje in zdravstvena policija. Acta Histriae 18, 2010, št. 3, str. 627–650. 17 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–182022 Bratož, Urška: Bledolična vsiljivka z Vzhoda: kolera v severozahodni Istri (1830–1890). Koper: Založba Annales ZRS Koper, 2017. Bratož, Urška: Vojna, lakota in bolezen: po sledeh španske gripe v Kopru. Acta Histriae 28, 2020, št. 1, str. 21–40. Brisky, Livia in Krželj, Vjekoslav in Lozić, Bernarda in Kuzmanić Šamija, Radenka in Brisky, Tibor: Introduction of Obligatory Vaccination Against Smallpox in Dalmatia and the City of Split Du- ring the First Half of the 19th Century. Paedia- tria Croatica 56, 2012, št. 1, str. 83–88. Bynum, William F.: Medicina e società. Storia del pensiero medico occidentale. Vol. II. Dal rinascimento all'inizio dell'ottocento (ur. Mirko Dražen Grmek). Roma, Bari: Laterza, 1996, str. 451–492. Ciatto, Carlo: Il Vaiuolo e la Vaccinazione. Lezione. Trieste: Appolonio & Caprin, 1872. Cigui, Rino: Le origini dell’innesto profilatico del vaiolo in Istria e il ruolo del protomedico pro- vinciale Ignazio Lotti. Atti CRS, XLV, 2015, str. 265–295. Cigui, Rino: Misure di profilassi in Istria nella prima metà del XIX secolo. La vaccinazione antivaiolo- sa della popolazione infantile durante la domina- zione francese e austriaca. Filii, filiae,…: položaj i uloga djece na jadranskom prostoru. 4. Istarski po- vijesni biennale. Poreč, Zavičajni muzej Poreštine, Pazin, Državni arhiv, Pula, Sveučilište Jurja Do- brile, 2011, str. 239–254. Čeč, Dragica: »Da bo dobro izbral med tistimi po- tencialnimi rejniškimi starši, ki bodo najbolje iz- polnjevali namene njegovega Veličanstva«: o vlogi posrednika pri oskrbi najdenčkov. Acta Histriae 21, 2013, št. 3, str. 193–214. Čeč, Dragica: Revščina kot grožnja družbenemu redu v 18. stoletju. Acta Histriae 24, 2016, št. 2, str. 291–312. De Manussi, Alessandro: Cenni clinico-statistici sull'epidemia del vaiolo in Trieste: dal 1892 al 1894. Trieste: Tipografia Morterra, 1895. Dizionario di igiene pubblica e di polizia sanitaria ad uso dei medici e dei magistrati dell'ordine ammini- strativo, Vol. 4. Milano, G. Favale e C., 1860. Durbach, Nadja: Smallpox, Vaccination and the Mar- ked Body. A Cultural History of the Human Body in the Age of Empire (ur. Michael Sappol, Stephen P. Rice). Oxford: Berg, 2010, str. 191–212. Globočnik, Anton: Nauk slovenskim županom, kakó jim je délati, kadar opravljajo domačega in izročenega podróčja dolžnósti. Ljubljana: Klein in Kovač, 1880. Hamlin, Christopher: Commentaries on »The Fate of the concept of Medical Police 1780–1890« by George Rosen. Commentary 01: The Fate of »The Fate of the Concept of Medical Police«. Centaurus, vol. 50, 2008, str. 63–69. Kern, Vincenc: Nauk od koze stavlenja. Ljubljana, J. F. Eger, 1799. Kiple, Kenneth F.: The Cambridge world history of hu- man disease. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Košar, Franc: Od telesne reje otrok. Drobtinice, za novo leto 1852. Kozinc, Željko: Prebolela sem črne koze. Tovariš 28, 1972, št. 14, str. 12–13. Kramar, Janez: Epidemije v Slovenski Istri. Zgodo- vinski časopis 49, 1995, št. 1, str. 99–111. Lipič, Fran Vilijem: Topografija c.-kr. deželnega glav- nega mesta Ljubljane z vidika naravoslovja in me- dicine, zdravstvene ureditve in biostatike (1834). Ljubljana: Znanstveno društvo za zgodovino zdravstvene kulture Slovenije, 2003. Mascherpa, Guiseppe: Sulla Vaccinazione Opuscolo Medico-Politico. Pavia: Bizzoni, 1834. Muznik, Anton: Goriško podnebje = Clima Goritiense. Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgodovino medicine Medi- cinske fakultete, Znanstveno društvo za zgodovi- no zdravstvene kulture Slovenije, 2000. Pinguentini, Gianni: Cronache di 75 anni or sono il vaiuolo del 1872 a Trieste. Porta orientale, 1–3, 1947, str. 36–40. Prinzing, Friedrich: Epidemics Resulting from Wars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916. Resoconto sanitario dello spedale civico di Trieste per l'anno 1894: XXII annata. Trieste: Municipio, 1896. Robida, Karel: Zdravo telo nar boljši blago, alj navk zdravje ohraniti. V Celovci: Janes Leon, 1846. Rutar, Simon: Samosvoje mesto Trst in mejna grofija Istra: prirodoznanski, statistični, kulturni in zgodo- vinski opis. Ljubljana: Matica Slovenska, 1896. Scartabellati, Andrea: Visibili nemici dei pitocchi. La lotta al vaiolo e al colera come laboratorio delle moderne forme di interventismo sociale. L’esperienza triestina, 1850–1886. Igiene e Sanità Pubblica, LXIV, 2008, 4, str. 521–543. Schrom Dye, Nancy in Smith, Daniel Blake: Mother Love and Infant Death, 1750–1920. The Journal of American History, vol. 73, 1986, n. 2, str. 329–353. Slomšek, Anton Martin: Blaže ino Nežica v nedelski šoli. Gradec: Andreja Lajkama nasledniki, 1842. Thacker, Eugene: The Shadows of Atheology: Epi- demics, Power and Life after Foucault. Theory, Culture & Society 26, 2009, str. 134–152. Travner, Vladimir: Kuga na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Življenje in svet, 1934. Vodopivec, Peter: Črne koze na Kranjskem in v Ljubljani v letih 1873/74. Kronika 20, 1972, št. 2, str. 92–96. Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Goriški medicus Anton Muznik in medicina. Goriško podnebje. Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgodovino medicine Medicinske fa- kultete: Znanstveno društvo za zgodovino zdra- vstvene kulture Slovenije, 2000, str. 207–231. Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Mlekarice ne obolevajo za črnimi kozami. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja, 18 URŠKA BRATOŽ: PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU, 7–18 2022 1861–1883 (ur. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova re- vija, 2003, str. 146–147. SPLETNI VIRI Agostoni, Claudia: Knowledge, Actors and Strategies: Smallpox Vaccination in Mexico City, 1803–1872. V: Nuevo Mundo, Mundos Nuevo: https://journals.openedition.org/nuevomun- do/75397 Notificazione del Magistrato civico di Trieste sul vaiolo, 10. september 1885: https://archiviodistatotrieste.it/documento-del- -mese/notificazione-del-magistrato-civico-di- -trieste-sul-vaiolo/ S U M M A R Y Smallpox prevention in the Austrian Littoral The article discusses vaccination (with cowpox virus) as the key smallpox prophylaxis, used in the Habsburg provinces from the beginning of the nine- teenth century onward. The analysis of quantitative data for the Austrian Littoral (particularly Koper and Trieste as a crucial focus of the epidemic) also points to the scope and frequency of smallpox epi- demics in the second half of the nineteenth centu- ry, which raises questions concerning the extent to which these prophylactic measures were implement- ed and the population’s willingness to heed the calls for immunization. By creating a regulatory framework, the state sought to attain the maximum possible prevalence of this practice, which was nevertheless accompanied by different rejecting responses for a long time to come. With calls to the population through a range of com- munication channels the authorities, the Church, and scientists therefore sought to heighten the popu- lar awareness on the need for immunization within the discourse on state efforts to provide welfare and reduce infant mortality. Because cowpox vaccination failed to ensure lasting immunity, revaccination was of crucial importance. Although the analyzed area saw quite regular and systematic vaccination of new- borns, the number of which could be closely moni- tored, general revaccinations of the population were mainly carried out in the face of imminent threats of epidemics, thus their implementation was even more limited. 19 2022 IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA 1.02 Pregledni znanstveni članek UDK 616.912:616-036.22(497.4)"1873/1874"(054) Prejeto: 24. 3. 2021 Luka Hekič diplomirani zgodovinar, Sadjarska ulica 24, SI–2327 Rače E-pošta: luka.hekic@gmail.com Poročanje časopisja o epidemiji črnih koz na Kranjskem v letih 1873–1874 IZVLEČEK Članek analizira epidemijo črnih koz v letih 1873 in 1874 na Kranjskem skozi poročanje slovenskega in nemške- ga časopisja. Pri tem s pomočjo časnikov podrobneje raziskuje širitev bolezni na Kranjskem, ukrepe deželnih oblasti in njihove kršitve ter posledice, ki so jih črne koze pustile pri prebivalstvu. Dodatno, s poudarkom na Ljubljani, razisku- je število umrlih ter njihovo socialno strukturo na vrhuncu epidemije. Z analizo teh procesov skuša članek prikazati, kako je potekala epidemija črnih koz na Kranjskem glede na poročanje časopisja ter na kakšen način so se časniki lotili vsakdanjega obveščanja javnosti o bolezni. KLJUČNE BESEDE Kranjska, Ljubljana, epidemija, črne koze, časopisje ABSTRACT NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874 The article analyzes the smallpox epidemic between 1873 and 1874 in Carniola through reporting of Slovenian and German newspapers. These also provide the basis for a detailed study of the spread of the disease in Carniola, measures adopted by the provincial authorities and their infringement, as well as the consequences for the popula- tion that smallpox left in its wake. With a further focus on Ljubljana, the article also investigates the number of the deceases and their social structure at the zenith of the epidemic. By analyzing these processes, it aims to demonstrate the course of the smallpox epidemic in Carniola as reported in newspapers and the way in which newspapers set on notifying the public daily about the disease. KEY WORDS Carniola, Ljubljana, epidemic, smallpox, newspapers 20 LUKA HEKIČ: POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874, 19–26 2022 Uvod1 Črne koze (ang. smallpox, nem. schwarze Pocken ali Blattern) so človeška nalezljiva bolezen, ki jo pov- zroča virus variole. Poznani sta dve vrsti virusa: težja oblika variole maior (ok. 30-odstotna smrtnost) in lažja oblika variole minor (ok. 1–2-odstotna smrt- nost). Virus se prenaša kapljično iz ustne ali nosne votline s kihanjem, kašljanjem ali prek stika z oku- ženimi telesnimi tekočinami in predmeti (na primer oblačili obolelega). Simptomi bolezni so rdeči izpu- ščaji, vročina, bruhanje, utrujenost in pogosto tudi dehidracija. Ko so oboleli uspešno premagali črne koze, so jim na telesu ponavadi ostale brazgotine (največkrat na obrazu, kar je imelo za mnoge tudi psihološke posledice), nemalo pa je primerov, ko je prišlo celo do delne ali popolne slepote. Posameznik lahko za črnimi kozami zboli samo enkrat v življenju, nato je na bolezen imun. Zdravilo za črne koze ne obstaja, edini način pre- ventivne zaščite je cepljenje, pri čemer so v preteklo- sti uporabljali dve različni metodi. Prva se imenuje variolizacija (iz besede variola): v zarezo na koži so vstavili kužno snov iz gnojnega mehurčka drugega bolnika, kar je povečini povzročilo razmeroma bla- go obliko bolezni. V primeru uspešnega prebolenja je oseba na črne koze postala doživljenjsko imuna. Druga metoda cepljenja je vakcinacija (iz latinske be- sede vacca, kar pomeni krava):2 pri podobnem proce- su, kot je opisan zgoraj, so namesto virusa črnih koz uporabili virus kravjih koz. Slabost te metode je bila, da je za razliko od variolizacije imunost trajala zgolj nekaj let, nato pa je bilo potrebno ponovno cepljenje oziroma revakcinacija, medtem ko je bila dobra stran te metode nekoliko nižja umrljivost zaradi cepljenja kot pri variolizaciji.3 V Habsburški monarhiji se je bolezen v okviru evropskih epidemij pojavila že pred 19. stoletjem, pozornost pa je vzbudila tudi pri številnih zdravni- kih, ki so delovali na Kranjskem.4 V Evropi je do ene zadnjih epidemij črnih koz prišlo prav v Jugoslavi- ji leta 1972. Bolezen se je sprva pojavila na Koso- vu, v Sloveniji pa ob strogih ukrepih in množičnem cepljenju niso potrdili niti enega primera okužbe.5 Danes so črne koze povsod po svetu izkoreninjene, 1 Članek je nastal na podlagi seminarske naloge pri predme- tu Izbrana poglavja iz slovenske zgodovine 19. stoletja pod mentorstvom dr. Katarine Keber. 2 Vakcinacija in revakcinacija sta bili množično v uporabi tudi v obdobju, ki ga obravnava članek. 3 »Smallpox« (https://www.britannica.com/science/smallpox (23. 10. 2019)); Grignolio, Kdo se boji cepiv?, str. 49–52; Kos, Epidemija, str. 288–292. 4 Bolezen med drugim opisuje zdravnik Fran Viljem Lipič v delu Bolezni Ljubljančanov, že pred njim pa so o kozah pisali idrijski zdravnik Balthasar Hacquet, goriški zdravnik Anton Muznik in ljubljanski zdravnik Vincenc Kern. 5 Epidemija črnih koz v Jugoslaviji (http://zgodovina.si/epide- mija-crnih-koz-v-jugoslaviji/ (15. 10. 2020)); Lipič, Bolezni Ljubljančanov, str. 153 in 160. kar je leta 1980 potrdila tudi Svetovna zdravstvena organizacija (WHO).6 Na Kranjskem so črne koze kosile tudi v letih 1873 in 1874, a slovensko zgodovinopisje te epide- mije ne obravnava prav pogosto. O njej je na podla- gi časopisja, letne statistike in drugih virov iz Zgo- dovinskega arhiva Ljubljana ter Arhiva Republike Slovenije podrobneje pisal zgolj Peter Vodopivec v članku Črne koze na Kranjskem in v Ljubljani v letih 1873/74 – ta članek je za krajši geselski sestavek Huda epidemija črnih koz kasneje povzel Andrej Studen v Kroniki 19. stoletja. Splošno o črnih kozah (predvsem o epidemijah v 18. stoletju) in cepljenju pa je pisalo več zgodovinarjev. Urška Železnik v prispevku Bolni otroci in starševske skrbi: odnos do otroškega zdravja na primeru prepričevanja koz v 19. stol. med drugim opi- suje odnos prebivalstva do cepiva proti črnim kozam in načine, s katerimi so oblasti želele posameznike prepričati, da bi se cepili. S pomočjo statistične anali- ze in dokumentacije zdravnika Giana Andree Man- zonija je ista avtorica v članku Cepljenje proti kozam v koprskem okraju v 30. letih 19. stoletja podrobneje pisala o poteku in številčnosti cepljenja proti črnim kozam v Kopru ter njegovi okolici. Manjši del ma- gistrske naloge Življenje v Ljubljani ob koncu 18. in na začetku 19. stoletja je epidemiji črnih koz v letih 1873 in 1874 posvetila Marjana Kos, v splošnem pa njeno delo analizira predvsem cepljenje in obravnavo ter pokopavanje umrlih za kozami. Marjana Kos je napisala tudi članek Epidemije črnih koz v Ljublja- ni v drugi polovici 18. stoletja, v katerem na podlagi mrliških knjig, časopisja in gradiva upravnih organov opisuje razširitev obeh vrst cepljenja na Kranjsko ter preučuje epidemije črnih koz na Slovenskem iz dru- ge polovice 18. stoletja.7 6 »Smallpox« (https://www.who.int/csr/disease/smallpox/en/ (23. 10. 2019)). 7 Podrobnejši podatki o omenjenih delih so navedeni v sezna- mu literature. Bolnik, ki je zbolel za virusom črnih koz (https://novice.svet24.si/clanek/ zanimivosti/585aafb431e94/bolezen-moderne-dobe). 21 LUKA HEKIČ: POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874, 19–262022 Pričujoči članek bo tako skušal zapolniti vrzeli o poteku epidemije v letih 1873 in 1874, povsem na novo pa bo raziskal način poročanja časopisja o črnih kozah na Kranjskem ter ugotavljal socialno strukturo umrlih, s poudarkom na Ljubljani, ko je bila epide- mija tam najhujša.8 Začetek epidemije v Habsburški monarhiji in redki primeri bolezni na Kranjskem Črne koze so se po Evropi pričele ponovno epide- mično širiti po koncu francosko-pruske vojne (1870– 1871). Habsburško monarhijo je bolezen najbolj pri- zadela med letoma 1872 in 1874, po njenem ozemlju pa se je razširila postopoma. Med najbolj okuženimi deželami cesarstva so bile Spodnja Avstrija, Salzburg in Šlezija, med južnimi območji monarhije pa Trst.9 Leta 1873 se je bolezen začela množično širiti tudi po Štajerski, Koroški in Kranjski, kjer je vrhunec do- segla v prvi četrtini leta 1874.10 Črne koze se v povezavi s Kranjsko v slovenskem in nemškem časopisju do marca 1873 ne omenjajo, kajti do takrat je bila glavne pozornosti deležna pri- prava novega volilnega zakona.11 Šele 7. marca 1873 Slovenski narod kot prvi zapiše, »da se kozavi in ko- lerni bolniki mestni v deželno bolnišnico sprejemajo le toliko časa, dokler ti bolezni ne postaneta epidemični, ker v deželni bolnišnici za nje ni ločenega prostora«.12 To več kot očitno kaže, da primeri črnih koz v Ljubljani in drugod po Kranjskem v tem času niso odstopali od povprečja. Isti časnik že dva dni pozneje poroča o kozavih bolnikih v Kranjski Gori ter poudarja, da se je nekoliko povečalo število bolnikov v ljubljan- ski Deželni bolnišnici, toda v zapisu še vedno govori zgolj o posameznih, nepovezanih primerih z različ- nih območij Kranjske.13 Ob koncu marca Slovenski narod ponovno poroča o novih obolelih s črnimi ko- zami ter o pomanjkanju prostora v Deželni bolnišni- ci, vendar pri tem ne zasledimo večjega preplaha v povezavi z nekoliko povečanim številom posameznih primerov.14 V začetku aprila časopisje ponovno poroča o majhnem številu na novo zbolelih s kozami ter o eni 8 V času pisanja članka, ko so bili v veljavi ukrepi za zajezitev virusa COVID-19, časopisnih navedb o umrlih zaradi zapr- tih arhivov ni bilo mogoče preveriti v mrliških knjigah ljub- ljanskih župnij. 9 Trst je bil v tem času skupaj z Istro in Goriško-Gradiško se- stavni del Avstrijskega primorja, ki ga je epidemija močno prizadela – po vsej verjetnosti so se črne koze ravno od tam razširile po celotni Kranjski (Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92; Slovenski zgodovinski atlas, str. 148). 10 Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92–96; Železnik, Bolni otroci, str. 438–449. 11 Omenjeni zakon iz leta 1873 je v avstrijski polovici monarhi- je uvedel neposredne volitve v dunajski državni zbor v obliki štirih kurij (Cvirn, Dunajski državni zbor, str. 128–129). 12 Slovenski narod, 7. 3. 1873, str. 3. 13 Slovenski narod, 9. 3. 1873, str. 3. 14 Slovenski narod, 30. 3. 1873, str. 3. smrtni žrtvi (umrla naj bi neka ženska). Pri tem za Ljubljano opozarja, da »bolezen po mestu dosedaj še nij epidemična, vendar še zmiraj posamezni na kozah zbo- le«, zato naj se prebivalstvo pred tem karseda dobro zavaruje.15 Nato novice o črnih kozah in obolelih do konca aprila ponovno potihnejo, za kratek čas pa se zopet pojavijo v začetku maja 1873, ko časopisi poro- čajo o nekaj obolelih ter majhnem (ne točnem) števi- lu žrtev.16 Konec julija se začnejo pojavljati nove vesti o bolezni iz Kranja in njegove okolice, nekoliko večje število okuženih pa so opazili tudi v okolici Ljubljane (Vižmarje in Medvode).17 Iz tega je razvidno, da se je število okuženih sicer nekoliko povečalo, vendar se črne koze še niso močno razširile po deželi. Od avgusta do oktobra so novice o črnih kozah začasno potihnile, saj v Slovenskem narodu ne zasle- dimo članka, ki bi govoril o njih, prav tako o njih ne poroča na novo izhajajoči Slovenec.18 Nekatere pri- mere bolezni v Ljubljani z okolico omenja zgolj Lai- bacher Zeitung, vendar še vedno ni govora o epidemiji – posamezni primeri črnih koz so kot nekaj povsem običajnega za tisti čas omenjeni skupaj z drugimi bo- leznimi, kot so tuberkuloza, angina in tifus.19 Množična razširitev bolezni na Kranjsko in sprejetje zaščitnih ukrepov Novembra Slovenski narod o kozah ne poroča nič posebnega, njegova glavna tema so večinoma volitve v deželni zbor, ki so potekale 11. novembra 1873 – nasprotno pa Slovenec vendarle nekajkrat poroča o omenjeni bolezni. Sredi meseca je objavil dopis iz Gradca, kjer so domačini mislili, da so črne koze za- radi zime počasi izginjale. Toda sredi novembra so v štajerski prestolnici ponovno opazili naraščanje šte- vila primerov, v časopisju pa so se zaradi premikov vojske bali množičnega prenosa bolezni iz Štajerske na Kranjsko.20 Proti koncu meseca v istem časopisu vedno pogosteje poročajo o kakem umrlem, pri ka- terem so bile vzrok smrti prav črne koze.21 Laibacher Zeitung prav tako vse pogosteje navaja primere bo- lezni, sredi novembra pa zapiše, da je število okuže- nih s kozami vse večje in da so črne koze pogoste- je kot ponavadi vzrok smrti pri otrocih in odraslih. Vendarle pa na vrhu seznama bolezni, ki najpogo- steje prizadenejo Ljubljančane, novembra 1873 na podlagi poročil še vedno ostaja tuberkuloza.22 15 Slovenski narod, 3. 4. 1873, str. 3. 16 Slovenski narod, 4. 5. 1873, str. 3. 17 Slovenski narod, 31. 7. 1873, str. 2. 18 Z izdajanjem časnika Slovenec so pričeli oktobra 1873, sprva pa je izhajal zgolj dva- do trikrat na teden, kar nekoliko zoži nabor informacij o epidemiji; Slovenec, 14. 10. 1873, str. 1. 19 Laibacher Zeitung, 3. 10. 1873, str. 3; 10. 10. 1873, str. 3; 20. 10. 1873, str. 3; 22. 10. 1873, str. 3. 20 Slovenec, 20. 11. 1873, str. 3. 21 Slovenec, 11. 11. 1873, str. 4; 25. 11. 1873, str. 4; 27. 11. 1873, str. 4; 29. 11. 1873, str. 4. 22 Laibacher Zeitung, 15. 11. 1873, str. 4. 22 LUKA HEKIČ: POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874, 19–26 2022 Sredi decembra so v Slovenskem narodu zapisali, da je v okolici Ljubljane veliko novih ljudi zbolelo za črnimi kozami ter »da je tudi nekoliko učencev srednjih šol v Ljubljani na kozah bolno«.23 19. decembra 1873 časniki poročajo o vedno večjem številu učencev, ki so na novo zboleli, zato je bilo vsem šolarjem od te- daj izrecno prepovedano hoditi k pouku, če je kdo od domačih zbolel za kozami.24 Že dan kasneje pa so oblasti sprejele nekoliko bolj drastične ukrepe, saj so za tri tedne zaprle ljubljansko gimnazijo, realko, učiteljišče in vse ljudske šole. V časopisu na tem me- stu sploh prvič pišejo o širjenju epidemije, kar se do tedaj v letu 1873 še ni zgodilo.25 Do konca meseca v časnikih poročajo o obolelih iz vseh delov Kranjske, za božič so na primer v Novem mestu morali zapreti vse šole, v Ljubljani pa je bila bolnišnica na Poljanah že tako polna, da so morali odpreti novo začasno bol- nišnico v Trnovem, ki je bila glede na poročila prav tako polna v nekaj dneh. Bolne so na domu množič- no zdravili tudi zasebni zdravniki, številni oboleli pa pogosto sploh niso poiskali strokovne pomoči, zato je takšne kar po hišah iskala na novo ustanovljena sani- tetna policija.26 Na zadnji dan leta 1873 je sledil nov razglas, da se bo zaprtje šol v Ljubljani podaljšalo še za en mesec (torej do konca januarja 1874) oziroma dokler se ne bo končala epidemija na Kranjskem.27 Tako je decembra 1873 prišlo do preobrata, saj so se črne koze dokončno epidemično razširile po ce- lotni Kranjski. Časopisi so skorajda dnevno poročali o primerih bolezni, deželna vlada pa je pričela spre- jemati prve ukrepe, povezane z zajezitvijo epidemije. V Slovenskem narodu so v zadnjem tednu decembra kranjski deželni vladi celo redno očitali, da še vedno ne sprejema dovolj učinkovitih ukrepov in da se bo epidemija črnih koz posledično še bolj nenadzorova- no širila, žrtev pa bo nepredstavljivo več. V prvi četrtini leta 1874 je epidemija črnih koz na Kranjskem doživela vrhunec. Z novim letom je ljubljanski mestni magistrat vzpostavil stalno (sani- 23 Slovenski narod, 17. 12. 1873, str. 3. 24 Slovenski narod, 19. 12. 1873, str. 3. 25 Slovenski narod, 20. 12. 1873, str. 3; Slovenec, 20. 12. 1873, str. 4. 26 Slovenski narod, 25. 12. 1873, str. 3; 28. 12. 1873, str. 4; 30. 12. 1873, str. 3. 27 Slovenski narod, 31. 12. 1873. tetno) komisijo, katere glavna naloga je bila prepre- čiti širjenje epidemije. Sestavljali so jo župan, štir- je mestni odborniki, dva mestna zdravnika in prvi magistratni svetovalec.28 Komisija je na prvem za- sedanju sprejela dva ukrepa, in sicer da se kapaciteta začasne bolnišnice v Trnovem poveča za 50 oseb ter da se morajo oblačila bolnikov obvezno dezinficirati, v primeru revežev na mestne stroške.29 Po poročanju časopisov se je januarja 1874 izrazito povečalo število oseb, ki so umrle za črnimi kozami; za njihovo zdrav- ljenje je deželna vlada poleg kolere porabila največ sredstev, namenjenih za zdravstvo.30 Sredi meseca so se koze še naprej širile po Kranjski, o čemer pričajo številni dopisi iz celotne dežele, zato se je sanitetna komisija v Ljubljani odločila prisilne počitnice za šolarje podaljšati (vsaj) do 3. februarja 1874, med- tem ko so jih novomeške oblasti podaljšale (vsaj) do 27. januarja.31 V zadnji tretjini meseca vse pogosteje zasledimo poročila, da so se prav v Novem mestu in okolici koze močno razširile – tamkajšnja bolnišnica naj bi bila prepolna, med prebivalstvom pa se je pred boleznijo širila tako velika bojazen, da »vsak se boji k sosedu v hišo, da ne bi koz dobil«.32 Med Ljubljančani je veliko razburjenje povzročilo dejstvo, da so obolele zapornike z Ljubljanskega gradu pričeli prevažati v začasno bolnišnico za kozave v Trnovem, saj je bilo številne meščane močno strah njihovega pobega.33 Ob koncu januarja o hudi epidemiji črnih koz poro- čajo tudi iz Kranja ter njegove okolice. Tudi tam naj si ljudje ne bi upali oditi iz hiše, oblasti so poročale o številnih obolelih in smrtnih žrtvah med otroki, na- raščanje števila obolelih pa naj bi zadnje čase opazili tudi med odraslimi.34 Sanitetna komisija v Ljubljani je konec januarja objavila naslednje dodatne ukrepe za zajezitev epidemije: zdravniki morajo sporoči- ti število obolelih za kozami, vse šolske učilnice in osebne stvari preminulih morajo biti dezinficirane, šolske počitnice pa se, kot omenjeno, končajo šele 3. februarja.35 Kljub izjemno resnemu stanju pa so časniki ob koncu januarja 1874 na več mestih zago- tavljali, da epidemija že izgublja sapo in da je tako dolgo zaprtje šol v resnici nepotrebno. Hkrati so na več mestih izrazili prošnjo deželni vladi, naj uvede obvezno cepljenje proti kozam, ki naj bi delovalo kot najbolj učinkovita in smiselna zaščita pred širjenjem bolezni. V ljubljanske šole so se otroci vrnili 4. februarja, vendar so številni učitelji že isti dan tožili, »da mnogo 28 Na tem mestu časopisje sicer omenja komisijo, vendar njeni člani niso poimensko navedeni. 29 Slovenski narod, 1. 1. 1874, str. 3; Laibacher Zeitung, 2. 1. 1874, str. 3. 30 Slovenski narod, 8. 1. 1874, str. 3. 31 Slovenski narod, 14. 1. 1874, str. 3; 15. 1. 1874, str. 3; Slovenec, 20. 1. 1874, str. 4. 32 Slovenski narod, 18. 1. 1874, str. 3. 33 Slovenski narod, 20. 1. 1874, str. 3. 34 Slovenski narod, 30. 1. 1874, str. 3. 35 Slovenec, 29. 1. 1874, str. 3. Časopisni članek o zaprtju šol v Novem mestu (Slovenski narod, 25. 12. 1873). 23 LUKA HEKIČ: POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874, 19–262022 učencev nij v šolo prišlo, ki sicer nemajo koz, a stanujejo po hišah, kjer so kozavi bolniki«.36 Vse to kaže, da je bilo v začetku februarja še vedno veliko okuženih in takšnih, ki so bili neposredno v stiku z njimi. Mnogo obolelih potrjuje tudi članek iz naslednjega dne, ki zatrjuje, da sta bolnišnici na Poljanah in v Trnovem zopet polni kozavih bolnikov.37 Prav tako ves februar časopisi še vedno poročajo o številnih primerih črnih koz iz vse Kranjske, iz česar izhaja, da epidemija ni opešala, kar je v popolnem nasprotju s poročanjem časnikov konec januarja. Bolezen naj bi prišla celo na Nanos, kar se je takratni javnosti zdelo nemogo- če zaradi višine in stalnega vetra, ki naj bi tiste kraje varovala pred vsemi epidemičnimi boleznimi.38 Fe- bruarja je tako v tistih rubrikah Slovenskega naroda in Slovenca, v katerih so navedeni umrli in vzroki za smrt, še vedno mogoče zaznati ogromno število oseb, ki so preminule za kozami. V Laibacher Zeitung so objavili članek, v katerem zagotavljajo, da »ist [...] Impfstoff zur Vaccination und Revaccination in guter Qualität aus der steiermärkisch landschaftlichen Impf- stoff-Regenerierungsanstalt [...] stets nach beliebigem Bedarf zu beziehen« (je cepivo za vakcinacijo in re- vakcinacijo, ki prihaja iz Štajerske deželne ustanove za cepiva in ki je dobre kvalitete, vedno na voljo v poljubnih količinah).39 S tem so po vsej verjetnosti želeli čim več ljudi prepričati v cepljenje, saj so ravno to metodo številni časniki videli kot najučinkovitejšo v boju proti epidemiji.40 Zajezitev epidemije, njen konec ter posledice V začetku marca 1874 iz nekaterih krajev na Kranjskem sporočajo, da koze sicer še razsajajo ter da naj bodo ljudje previdni, vendar da epidemija ni tako huda kot prejšnja dva meseca. Tako so na primer za Novo mesto 21. marca 1874 sporočili, da so črne koze ponehale – v nasprotju s tem pa še vedno sledijo številna poročila o epidemiji iz drugih delov monar- hije, predvsem iz sosednje Štajerske, kjer naj bi naj- več primerov zasledili v Savinjski dolini.41 Prav tako se je v člankih, v katerih so objavljali število umrlih ter vzroke smrti, število žrtev črnih koz postopoma zmanjšalo. Posledica tega je bila, da so marca zaprli začasno bolnišnico za kozave v Trnovem, ki je sicer ostajala v pripravljenosti ob morebitnem novem epi- demičnem izbruhu bolezni.42 V naslednjih nekaj mesecih so objave o epide- miji na Kranjskem popolnoma izginile, obolelost pa 36 Slovenski narod, 5. 2. 1874, str. 3. 37 Slovenski narod, 6. 2. 1874, str. 3. 38 Slovenski narod, 17. 2. 1874, str. 3. 39 Laibacher Zeitung, 5. 1. 1874, str. 4. 40 Takšen članek ni nobena redkost, saj se v času epidemije v časopisju na več mestih pojavljajo tako pozivi prebivalcem, naj se cepijo, kot oblastem, naj uvedejo obvezno cepljenje. 41 Slovenski narod, 21. 3. 1874, str. 3. 42 Slovenski narod, 22. 3. 1874, str. 2. se je več kot očitno vrnila v običajne okvire. Na tem mestu se porajajo številna vprašanja: Kaj je v resni- ci pripomoglo k zajezitvi epidemije? Ali so ukrepi deželne vlade ter sanitetne komisije končno priče- li učinkovati? Ali je h koncu epidemije prispevala sprememba vremena (prehod iz zime v pomlad)? Ali morda razlog tiči v dodatnem deležu cepljenega prebivalstva? Viri ne ponujajo enotnega odgovora, je pa treba poudariti, da je epidemija zagotovo pustila velike fizične in psihične posledice. Kot smo ome- nili v uvodnem poglavju, so številnim osebam, ki so bolezen prebolele, ostale brazgotine, nekatere so celo oslepele. Velikokrat sta v večjih družinah zbolela in preminula oba starša, otroci pa so postali sirote. Slo- venski narod z dne 3. marca 1874 navaja primer, ko je za kozami zbolela celotna družina (oba starša ter vseh sedem otrok), medtem pa so izgubili prihod- ke in vse prihranke – zaradi bolezni in nezmožnosti za delo so obubožali.43 Da si lahko še bolj slikovito predstavljamo, kakšen vpliv na prebivalstvo je imela epidemija črnih koz v prvi četrtini leta 1874, verjetno zelo nazorno nakaže poimenovanje iz časopisja: to obdobje tam imenujejo kar »kozavi časi«.44 Toda za Kranjsko je bil to zgolj kratek oddih, saj so se že leta 1882 črne koze ponovno pojavile. Vzroki za razširitev bolezni Eden glavnih vzrokov za razširitev epidemije na Kranjskem je bila večja povezanost med posamezni- mi deli monarhije kot posledica hitrejših premikov množic zaradi novih izumov – tu je pomembna pred- vsem izgradnja Južne železnice leta 1857, s katero so povezali mesti Dunaj in Trst, potekala pa je tudi sko- zi Kranjsko ter glavno deželno mesto Ljubljano. Vse to je omogočalo hitrejše in intenzivnejše premikanje ljudi, večje trgovske stike45 ter lažje kroženje vojakov, ki so bili ob vojnah ponavadi vzrok za hitro širjenje epidemij, kot so črne koze in kolera. V času obrav- navane epidemije so tako po navedbah časopisja na 43 Slovenski narod, 3. 3. 1874, str. 3. 44 Slovenski narod, 4. 3. 1874, str. 2. 45 Trgovski stiki so bili še posebej močni s Trstom, ki je bil glav- no pristanišče monarhije – ravno od tam naj bi se epidemija po Južni železnici razširila po Kranjski; Slovenski zgodovinski atlas, str. 153; Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92. Časopisni članek o zaprtju začasne bolnišnice v Trnovem (Slovenski narod, 22. 3. 1874). 24 LUKA HEKIČ: POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874, 19–26 2022 Kranjskem najprej zbolele ravno tiste osebe, živeče v krajih ob Južni železnici.46 Glede na prebrano v časopisju se hkrati zdi, da ukrepi deželne vlade kljub številnim pozivom niso bili dovolj hitri, resni in zadostni, da bi lahko učin- kovito preprečili začetno epidemično širjenje bolezni po deželi. Del krivde nosi tudi prebivalstvo Kranj- ske, saj mnogi sploh niso upoštevali ukrepov ali pa so jih upoštevali v najmanjši možni meri. Tako lahko v časnikih zasledimo primer, ko »pride posestnik tri ure daleč o zadevah pravde, zavezan z ruto čez glavo polno koz na obrazu in na rokah katere so se še le gnojiti pričele, k sodniji«.47 Prav tako se svojci pogosto še nekaj časa niso želeli ločiti od umrlih, posledično pa so številni pokojni še več dni po smrti ostajali v hišah. Veliko ljudi ni obešalo črnih tabel, ki so opozarjale na bole- zen v gospodinjstvu, oboleli so se neomejeno gibali in odhajali celo v skupne prostore (gostilne, sodišča, cerkve, prodajalne …). Prepovedani niso bili niti obi- ski pri bolnih, higiena ter dezinfekcija pa sta kljub več opozorilom ostajali na zelo nizki ravni.48 V času epidemije naj bi bil po trditvah časopis- ja eden od poglavitnih vzrokov za razširitev bolezni zavračanje cepljenja. Odklanjali naj ga ne bi zgolj številni zdravi in bolni, temveč velikokrat tudi zdrav- niki, ki naj bi bili do cepiva skeptični in naj bi po- gosto celo aktivno agitirali proti njemu. Za takšna dejanja zakonsko ni bil nihče odgovoren, saj je bil že leta 1836 v avstrijskem delu monarhije izdan predpis, ki je zgolj priporočal cepljenje proti črnim kozam. Na Kranjskem je variolizacijo že leta 1799 vpeljal zdravnik Vincenc Kern, podatki iz sedemde- setih let 19. stoletja pa kažejo, da se je v deželi pred epidemijo letno (v obliki vakcinacije in revakcinacije) cepilo 13.000–14.000 oseb. Cepljeni naj bi skupaj z zdravniki dobivali razne nagrade in druge privilegi- je, matere necepljenih otrok pa je propaganda celo označevala kot slabe ter neodgovorne. Med epide- mijo je mestni svet celo preventivno uvedel izredno cepljenje Ljubljančanov, zato se moramo vprašati, ali so časniki kot enega izmed glavnih vzrokov za epi- demijo takšnega obsega upravičeno označevali ravno prenizko število cepljenih.49 46 Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92; Studen, Huda epidemija, str. 258. 47 Slovenski narod, 25. 2. 1874, str. 3. 48 Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92–93. 49 Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92; Železnik, Bolni otroci, str. 441–444; Železnik, Cepljenje proti kozam, str. 259–274; Studen, Huda epidemija, str. 259; Kos, Življenje v Ljubljani, str. 92. Smrtne žrtve epidemije črnih koz s poudarkom na deželi Kranjski in mestu Ljubljana Tabela 1: Število umrlih za črnimi kozami na 10.000 prebivalcev.50 Dežela 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 Kranjska 1,2 4,0 21,2 51,1 4,3 Koroška 1,9 2,7 18,3 27,8 5,6 Štajerska 1,7 7,0 15,1 22,4 8,0 Trst 2,1 72,2 4,1 5,9 2,7 Goriška in Gradiška 1,1 5,5 7,6 5,2 1,4 Istra 0,6 18,3 9,5 8,9 3,0 Iz tabele je razvidno, da je bilo med najbolj priza- detimi južnimi avstrijskimi območji mesto Trst leta 1872, sledi pa mu Kranjska leta 1874, ko je bila epi- demija tam najhujša. Tabela 2: Število umrlih za črnimi kozami po letih na Kranjskem.51 Dežela 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 Kranjska 58 187 993 2407 203 Glede na zgornje podatke lahko potrdimo na- vedbe časnikov, da je bila epidemija na Kranjskem najhujša leta 1874. V letih 1873 in 1874 je tam sku- paj umrlo 3.400 oseb oziroma okoli 0,7 % takra- tnega prebivalstva Kranjske, ki je znašalo približno 480.000. Tabela 3: Število umrlih za črnimi kozami v Ljubljani v prvi polovici leta 1874.52 Mesec Januar Februar Marec April Maj Junij Umrli za črnimi kozami 31 28 18 10 4 4 Iz tabele je razvidno, da je bila epidemija črnih koz januarja, februarja in marca 1874 v Ljubljani naj- bolj razširjena, kar je mogoče razbrati tudi iz poroča- nja slovenskega in nemškega časopisja. 50 Vodopivec, Črne koze, str. 92. 51 Prav tam. 52 Prav tam, str. 95. 25 LUKA HEKIČ: POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874, 19–262022 Tabela 4: Število umrlih za črnimi kozami v Ljubljani med decembrom 1873 in marcem 1874 po starostnih skupinah.53 Starost (leta) 0–5 6–20 21–50 50 + Umrli za črnimi kozami 31 12 31 6 Žrtve epidemije črnih koz v Ljubljani so najpo- gosteje spadale v starostno skupino od nekaj tednov do pet let ter v starostno skupino od 21 do 50 let, kar ni presenetljivo, saj je bila bolezen za dojenčke in malčke do petih let izredno nevarna; prav tako so med epidemijo večkrat poročali o nekoliko presenet- ljivem širjenju bolezni med odraslimi.54 Med žrtvami epidemije v Ljubljani predstavljajo otroci, ki niso do- polnili niti dveh let, kar ¼ vseh umrlih za črnimi ko- zami, povprečna starost preminulih pa se giba okoli 19 let.55 Tabela 5: Umrli za črnimi kozami v Ljubljani med decembrom 1873 in marcem 1874 po spolu.56 Spol Moški Ženske Umrli za črnimi kozami 37 46 Črne koze splošno veljajo za bolezen, ki naj bi vse družbene razrede prizadela vsaj približno v enaki meri. Kljub temu so med žrtvami v Ljubljani med decembrom 1873 in marcem 1874 povečini pripad- niki nižjih slojev, kot so otroci navadnih delavcev, pekov ter kajžarjev. Največ preminulih po 20. letu starosti pa je med kuharicami, mizarji, tesarji, čev- ljarji, peki, deklami, hlapci, ključarji in gospodinja- mi. Med vsemi umrlimi je bilo zgolj približno 15 % žrtev pripadnikov srednjega in višjega sloja, kot so profesorji, računovodje ter sodniki.57 Razloge za to lahko med drugim iščemo v tem, da so se v nižjih in manj izobraženih slojih bolj upirali cepljenju, kar je posledično pomenilo večjo stopnjo okuženosti in višji delež smrtnosti. Hkrati lahko manjšo smrtnost med višjimi sloji pripišemo večji higieni, kvalitetnej- šim bivalnim razmeram in boljši oskrbi, ki so si jo lahko ti v primeru okužbe privoščili v primerjavi z nižjimi sloji.58 53 Slovenec, 2. 12. 1873, str. 4; 11. 12. 1873, str. 4; 13. 12. 1873, str. 4; 20. 12. 1873, str. 4; 30. 12. 1873, str. 4; 6. 1. 1874, str. 4; 8. 1. 1874, str. 4; 17. 1. 1874, str. 4; 22. 1. 1874, str. 4; 24. 1. 1874, str. 4; 29. 1. 1874, str. 4; 31. 1. 1874, str. 4; 5. 2. 1874, str. 4; 7. 2. 1874, str. 4; 12. 2. 1874, str. 4; 19. 2. 1874, str. 4; 21. 2. 1874, str. 4; 26. 2. 1874, str. 4; 28. 2. 1874, str. 4; 5. 3. 1874, str. 4; 7. 3. 1874, str. 4; 12. 3. 1874, str. 4; 14. 3. 1874, str. 4; 17. 3. 1874, str. 4; 26. 3. 1874, str. 4; 31. 3. 1874, str. 4. 54 Železnik, Bolni otroci, str. 440. 55 Gl. op. 53. 56 Gl. op. 53. 57 Gl. op. 53. 58 Železnik, Bolni otroci, str. 442–447. Za konec Iz analize ljubljanskega slovenskega in nemškega časopisja je razvidno, da pred jesenjo 1873 ni mogo- če zaznati večjega odstopanja od povprečnega števila primerov črnih koz. Glavno pozornost so tako do novembra 1873 v časopisju imele predvsem politične novice, kot sta priprava novega zakona za volitve v državni zbor iz aprila 1873 in volitve v kranjski de- želni zbor, ki so potekale sredi novembra istega leta. Nekoliko povečano število obolelih lahko v časopi- sih zasledimo s pričetkom jeseni, ko poročajo o več nepovezanih primerih iz celotne Kranjske, ne pišejo pa še o epidemiji. Do preobrata pride šele z mese- cem decembrom, ko se število obolelih s črnimi ko- zami močno poveča. Takrat prične tudi slovensko in nemško časopisje pisati o epidemiji, zaradi izrednega stanja pa prebivalstvo vabi k čim večji udeležbi pri cepljenju, saj ga je videlo kot ključno za izhod iz epi- demije. Deželna vlada je v sodelovanju z lokalnimi oblastmi sprejela številne ukrepe, kot so zaprtje šol, vzpostavitev sanitetne komisije, obvezna dezinfekci- ja oblačil obolelih in odprtje bolnišnice v Trnovem. Kljub vsem ukrepom pa so se v časopisju še vedno pojavljali številni pozivi, naj oblasti uvedejo dodatne omejitve. Po poročanju časnikov naj bi epidemija ko- nec januarja 1874 že izgubljala sapo, kar se je že na- slednji mesec izkazalo za neresnično, saj so bile bol- nišnice ponovno polne kozavih bolnikov – zdi se, da je pisanje časopisov zelo hitro prešlo iz ene skrajnosti (zahteve po še več ukrepih) v drugo (preveč optimi- stične napovedi o koncu epidemije). V nasprotju z oceno časopisja se je epidemija pričela umirjati šele marca, čemur je sledilo rahljanje nekaterih ukrepov, vrata pa je zaprla tudi začasna bolnišnica v Trnovem. V splošnem opazimo, da časopisi v povezavi s črni- mi kozami močno poudarjajo predvsem Ljubljano, nekoliko presenetljivo pa se zdi, da so novice o epi- demiji v časnikih vedno šele na predzadnji strani.59 Vzroke za to gre najverjetneje iskati predvsem v tem, da časopisje med ljudmi ni želelo ustvarjati prevelike oziroma nepotrebne panike. VIRI IN LITERATURA ČASOPISI Laibacher Zeitung, 1873–1874. Slovenec, 1873–1874. Slovenski narod, 1873–1874. 59 Slovenski narod, Slovenec in Laibacher Zeitung so imeli v tem času največkrat zgolj štiri strani. 26 LUKA HEKIČ: POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874, 19–26 2022 LITERATURA Cvirn, Janez: Dunajski državni zbor in Slovenci (1848–1918). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Fi- lozofske fakultete, 2015. Grignolio, Andrea: Kdo se boji cepiv? Ljubljana: Založba/*cf, 2018. Kos, Marjana: Epidemije črnih koz v Ljubljani v drugi polovici 18. stoletja. Arhivi 43, 2020, št. 2, str. 287–305. Kos, Marjana: Življenje v Ljubljani ob koncu 18. in na začetku 19. stoletja (magistrsko delo). Ljubljana, 2007. Lipič, Fran Viljem: Bolezni Ljubljančanov. Ljubljana: ZRC, 2007. Slovenski zgodovinski atlas (ur. Drago Bajt in Marko Vidic). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2011. Studen, Andrej: Huda epidemija črnih koz. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja 1861–1883 (ur. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2003, str. 258–259. Vodopivec, Peter: Črne koze na Kranjskem in v Ljubljani v letih 1873/74. Kronika 20, 1972, št. 2, str. 92–96. Železnik, Urška: Bolni otroci in starševske skrbi: od- nos do otroškega zdravja na primeru preprečeva- nja koz v 19. stol. Zgodovina otroštva = History of childhood (ur. Aida Škoro Babić et al.). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, 2012, str. 438–449. Železnik, Urška: Cepljenje proti kozam v koprskem okraju v 30. letih 19. stoletja. Acta medico-historica Adriatica, 2014, št. 2, str. 259–274. SPLETNE STRANI Encyclopaedia Britannica Smallpox https://www.britannica.com/science/smallpox World Health Organization Smallpox https://www.who.int/csr/disease/smallpox/en/ Zgodovina.si Epidemija črnih koz v Jugoslaviji http://zgodovina.si/epidemija-crnih-koz-v-ju- goslaviji/ S U M M A R Y Newspaper reporting on the smallpox epide- mic in Carniola in 1873–1874 After the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), a new smallpox epidemic swept through Europe. The epidem- ic wave reached the Habsburg Monarchy in 1872 and gradually spread across its territory over the next two years. The most affected provinces were Lower Aus- tria, Silesia, and Salzburg as well as the city of Trieste and the province of Carniola in the south. Before the autumn of 1873, the reporting of Slovenian and Ger- man newspapers in Carniola showed no noticeable deviation from the average number of smallpox cases. A slight increase in infections could only be detected in November 1873, and the epidemic reached its peak between December 1873 and March 1874. Accord- ing to newspaper reports, the disease struck with full force in Ljubljana, Kranj, and Novo mesto. To contain the epidemic in the province, individual city authorities joined forces with the provincial government in adopt- ing numerous measures, including the formation of a sanitation commission, the mandatory disinfection of rooms and personal objects of the infected, the closure of schools, and emergency vaccination. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that newspapers repeatedly called on the provincial authorities to impose additional anti-epi- demic restrictions and appealed to the population to get vaccinated. Overall, Carniolans paid little heed to the measures by frequenting common areas (taverns, churches, courts, etc.), keeping smallpox corpses at their homes, and maintaining a low hygiene standard. Even though newspapers reported already at the end of January that the epidemic was losing its breath, the disease in fact only began to abate in March, when the provincial authorities relaxed some measures accord- ingly. In 1873 and 1874, altogether 3,400 persons died of smallpox in Carniola, amounting to about 0.7% of the provincial population at the time. The highest share of deaths in Ljubljana between December 1873 and March 1874 was represented by persons belonging to the age group between several weeks and five years and persons from the age group between twenty-one and fifty years. The smallpox epidemic claimed the highest toll among the members of lower social strata, such as children of workers, bakers, and of small cottage owners, whereas the victims older than twenty years engaged in vocations typical of the lowest social strata (farmhands, maids, cooks, housemaids, shoemakers, and carpenters). The reasons for such a social structure may be found in stronger resistance to vaccination among the lower social strata on the one hand and better hygiene, living conditions, and healthcare among the higher popula- tion strata on the other. 27 2022 IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek UDK 398(=163.6):615.89 616.98:579.842 616-036.21 Prejeto: 8. 7. 2021 Monika Kropej Telban dr., znanstvena svetnica, Inštitut za slovensko narodopisje ZRC SAZU, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana E-pošta: monika.kropej@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6459-3683 Pripovedi o kugi in zdravilne prakse proti tej bolezni v ljudskem izročilu IZVLEČEK Prispevek obravnava pripovedno izročilo o kugi, predvsem tisti del, ki govori o njenem širjenju ter načinih obrambe in zdravljenja pred to boleznijo v slovenskem prostoru in delno v širšem evropskem okviru. V prvem delu so analizirane pripovedi, v katerih se Kuga kot poosebljeni demonski lik bolezni širi iz kraja v kraj in iz dežele v deželo, v drugem delu članka pa je obravnavan predvsem način preprečevanja širjenja in zaščite pred to boleznijo ter zdravljenje, zarotitve, zagovarjanje in druge vernakularne prakse ljudi v času epidemije. KLJUČNE BESEDE kuga, pandemije, slovstvena folklora, Slovenija, ljudska medicina ABSTRACT FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE The contribution discusses the narrative folklore about the plague, most notably how it spread, how people tried to protect themselves against the disease and how they treated it in Slovenian territory and, to some extent, within the wider European framework. The first part presents the analysis of folktales in which the Plague, personified as a demonic figure, roams from place to place, from one land to another. The second part focuses on steps taken to prevent the disease from spreading and means of protection against it, as well as healing, charms, incantations, and other vernacular practices during the epidemic. KEY WORDS plague, pandemics, folk narrative, Slovenia, folk medicine 28 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–40 2022 Pripovedi o kugi – nalezljivi kužni bolezni, ki je v valovih že večkrat močno prizadela človeštvo – so se v ustnem izročilu ohranile bodisi kot opis razmer in obrambe pred epidemijo kuge ter zdravljenja te bolezni bodisi kot pripovedke o kugi – demonu, ki mori ljudi in živino. Ljudje so jo, predvsem v Evropi, opisovali kot bajeslovno bitje, tako kot so si pred- stavljali smrt, moro, lakoto in različne druge bolezni. V poosebljeni obliki se je pojavljala v demonologiji številnih narodov ter je predstavljala enega najhujših strahov v času in okolju, kjer je razsajala. Motivika ljudskih pripovedi o kugi je zelo ob- sežna, norveški folklorist Reidar Christiansen jih je v svojem katalogu o migracijskih povedkah (1958) razvrstil pod poglavje Legends concerning the Great Plague, med pripovednimi tipi pa omenja: 7080. Kuga v podobi stare ženske hodi od kraja do kraja z grabljami in metlo. 7085. Kugo v podobi stare ženske prepelje brod- nik čez vodo. Prepozna jo in prosi, naj mu priza- nese. Kuga pogleda v svojo knjigo in to odkloni, a mu obljubi lahko smrt. 7090. Preživela fant in dekle ter njuna usoda. 7095. Ponovno odkritje zapuščenih hiš in cerkve po mnogih letih, odkar je morila kuga.1 Vendar pa je tematika pripovedi o kugi še precej bolj raznolika, kar lahko razberemo iz gradiva, ki se je ohranilo v arhivih raziskovalnih ustanov in v tiskanih virih. Kuga in lakota Eden redkih folkloristov, ki je v slovenskem prostoru pisal o kugi in spremljajoči lakoti v podo- bi nenasitnega bajeslovnega bitja Netka, je bil Ivan Grafenauer.2 Kugo so namreč ljudje pogosto povezo- vali z lakoto, ki jo je v slovenskem izročilu poosebljal Netek. O njem so pripovedovali, da ogromno poje, a ostaja lačen in se nikoli ne nasiti – od tod tudi njego- vo ime »ne tek«, ki sicer pomeni angl. »no appetite«, vendar v smislu, da tek nikoli ne mine.3 V najstarejši ohranjeni slovenski povedki O Nete- ku, ki jo je leta 1847 objavil Josip Drobnič, povezava med netekom in kugo še ni eksplicitno navedena. Avtor le piše, da /…/ V tisti hiši, kjer Neteka brez je- sti in piti odpraviti hočejo, ljudem in živini vse zaloge poje in popije in v tistem kraju ljudem njive, vinogradi 1 Christiansen, The Migratory Legends, str. 214–215. 2 Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«. 3 Ivan Grafenauer je navedel tudi imena rastlin in živali, ki imajo skupni koren: netečje = jagode, ki človeka ne nasitijo, večinoma brusnice; netečnik = ptica bobnarica (Ardea stel- laria), ki se tako imenuje zaradi samčevega vsiljivega glasu (Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 164–165). in sadovnjaki tri leta nič ne rodijo. Kjer ga pa prijazno sprejmejo, tam se hvaležniga skaže.4 Tudi slovenski pisatelj Janez Trdina je leta 1881 pisal o Neteku,5 vendar ga tudi on ni eksplicitno po- vezal s kugo. Povezavo med Kugo in Snedežem (v slovenskem izročilu netkom ali netekom) je Gra- fenauer izpeljal predvsem na osnovi izročil, ki so se ohranila ponekod v alpskem svetu, predvsem v sre- dnjeevropskem prostoru, med Retoromani v Švici ter v Vorarlbergu v avstrijskih Alpah v liku požerušnega možička snedeža: Snedež / »Der Fresser« V začetku 17. stoletja je v Bregenškem gozdu – v po- rečju reke Bregenz na severu Vorarlberga – divjala kuga. Nekega dne dopoldne je tedaj prišel v nekda- njo gostilno »Pri Soncu« tujec in naročil južino za dvajset ljudi, ter se napotil dalje proti Ellenborgenu. Opoldne se je vrnil, toda sam, in je kosilo tudi sam do zadnje drobtine pospravil. Krčmarici se je zdelo to pošastno in je vprašala župnika za svet. Ta ji je svetoval, naj za kosilo ničesar ne vzame. Ko je tujec vprašal, kaj je dolžan, mu je odgovorila, da je že vse plačano. Tujec se je zahvalil in pove, da se kuga ne bo več širila. Od tedaj ga nihče ni več videl.6 Tudi drugod je ustno izročilo poročalo o vojni in lakoti, ki sledi kugi. V Bosni in Hercegovini so pri- povedovali, da kugi sledi leto lakote.7 Zanimivo je, da so romunski kmetje, ko so pričakovali prihod kuge, ki naj bi hodila naokrog v podobi ženske, ob cesti nastavili obilo hrane, s katero so gostili vse popotni- ke, da bi s tem preprečili prihod kuge.8 Prav tako pa tudi številni zgodovinski viri poročajo, da sta po kugi sledila pomanjkanje in gospodarski upad.9 Kuga, poosebljena v podobi žene, moža, dečka, dekleta ali kužnega para Kuga je bila po ljudski veri zli duh, ki mori ljudi in živino. Ljudje so si jo, predvsem v Evropi, predstav- ljali kot nadnaravno ali bajeslovno bitje, tako kot so si predstavljali smrt, moro, lakoto in različne druge bolezni. Kjer je beseda »smrt« moškega spola, je bila tudi kuga pogosto predstavljena kot moški, kjer pa je beseda »smrt« ženskega spola, je bila analogno temu tudi kuga prikazana kot ženska. Kuga – v ljudskem izročilu pogosto imenovana tudi Črna smrt – je torej svojo personificirano podobo privzela po teh pred- stavah. 4 Drobnič, Slovenska pripovedka; Grafenauer, Neték in »Po- nočna potnica«, str. 171. 5 Trdina, Verske bajke, str. 537. 6 Beitl, Im Sagenwald, str. 65, št. 82; Grafenauer, Neték in »Po- nočna potnica«, str. 159–160. 7 Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, str. 165. 8 Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 188, 190. 9 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, str. 81; Golec, Kužne epidemije, str. 59. 29 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–402022 Retoromani v Švici so si kugo predstavljali kot staro žensko. Arnold Bühli je objavil povedko, ki pripoveduje, kako je leta 1566 kuga preko Basla in Berna v podobi stare ženske, oblečene v črno, prišla v Ladir: Pri neki hiši čisto zgoraj v vasi je potrkala na okno in vprašala, ali bi mogla tu prenočiti. Ne, so ji ljudje odgovorili, v hiši da ni prostora, če bi pa hotela spati v skednju, da lahko. Potem so videli, da je v črno za- grnjena starka stopila v skedenj. Pozneje pa je nihče ni več videl. Drugi dan je v vasi izbruhnila kuga.10 Na Hrvaškem so pripovedovali, da je v bližini naselja Pavlovac v Bjelovarski županiji živela kuga v gozdu. Skozi ta gozd se je nekega večera peljal kmet na vozu. Kuga, ki je sedela pri ognju in pekla konjsko in člove- ško meso, mu je ponudila človeško meso, ki ga je kmet tudi pojedel. Ko se je kmet vrnil v Pavlovac, je iz- bruhnila kuga in pomorila vse prebivalce.11 V Bosni in Hercegovini so kugo opisovali kot ženo, ki ima v eni roki metlo, v drugi pa luč, da lah- ko najde in »pomete« čim več ljudi.12 Pred kugo so bežali v pečine oziroma gore ali v druge kraje.13 Tudi v slovenskem izročilu se je ohranil pregovor: »Če se prikaže kuga v bližini, kupi si par močnih črevljev in beži tako dolgo, da bodo podplati raztrgani.«14 Germanski narodi so si kugo predstavljali v po- dobi moškega ali dečka. Jacob in Wilhelm Grimm sta med drugim objavila sledečo pripoved o kugi v podobi visokega moža: Visoki mož na Ulici umora v kraju Hof Leta 1519, tik preden je začela kuga moriti v kraju Hof, se je na Ulici umora prikazal visok črn mož. Njegove široko razkrečene noge so segale na obe strani ulice in njegova glava se je dvigala nad strehami hiš. Moja prababica Valburga Widmann ga je nekega večera videla, kako je hodil po ulici z eno nogo pri vhodu krčme in z drugo čez cesto pred veliko hišo, ki je stala tam. Bila je tako prestrašena, da ni vedela, kam naj gre. V božjem imenu in križajoč se je nada- ljevala pot po sredi ceste med njegovimi razkrečenimi nogami. Če si tega ne bi upala storiti, bi ji prika- zen sledila. Komaj je ubežala, ko je duh treščil noge skupaj, tako močno, da so se vse hiše na Ulici umora skorajda sesule. Kmalu zatem je kuga prizadejala mesto in prav na Ulici umora je udarila najprej.15 10 Bühli, Sagen aus Graubündeni, 2, str. 210; po: Grafenauer, Ne- ték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 186. 11 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, str. 36. 12 Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, str. 166. 13 Prav tam, str. 165. 14 Slekovec, Kuga na slovenskem štajerskem, str. 142. 15 Grimm, Deutsche Sagen, št. 167, str. 243: »Der lange Mann in der Mordgasse zu Hof«. Prav tako razširjene – predvsem v Srednji Evro- pi in tudi v Islandiji16 – so bile predstave o kužnem paru – moškem in ženski, ki sta hodila od kraja do kraja in širila kugo. Kot pripoveduje nemška poved- ka iz Schweinfurta ob reki Main, je smrtnik kosil, žena smrt (kuga) pa je grabila za njim in le to, kar je ušlo skozi grablje, ni umrlo.17 Tudi na Bavarskem v Nemčiji so bile dokumentirane predstave o moškem smrtniku in ženski smrti, ki sta kot kuga morila po deželi. Ena takih pripovedi se je ohranila na Avstrij- skem Koroškem: Nekoč je dejal Smrtnik Smrti: »Jaz vzamem koso, ti grablje; jaz bom kosil, ti boš za menoj grabila.« Tako sta šla Smrtnik in Smrt po Maltski gori (Maltaberg) navzgor. Ko sta prišla do poslednjega kmeta, je začel Smrtnik kositi, po vsej Maltski gori navzdol, ona pa je pokošene redi z grabljami vlačila za njim na kup. Medtem je divjala po gori kuga, noben človek ni ostal živ, vse je Smrtnik pokosil.18 V Vorarlbergu so pripovedovali, kako je prišla kuga v Feldkirchen in pomorila skoraj vse ljudi, tako da so ljudje začeli govoriti, kadar je kdo kihnil, »Bog pomagaj!« Die Pest in Feldkirchen / Kuga v Feldkirchnu Od Lichtensteina je prišlo dvoje pošasti proti reki Ill, ena je nosila metlo, druga lopato. Ob reki je dejala ena drugi: »Pojdi ti sem in prekoplji tu skozi, jaz pa pojdem tja in pometem tam skozi!« Tako sta si raz- delili doline. To je bilo veliko umiranje. Če je koga pošast samo pogledala, se je ta opotekel in počrnel, kdor pa je kihnil, je dobil mrzlico in padel še isti dan mrtev na tla. S kihanjem se je bolezen pokazala in ljudje so si v strahu dejali: »Bog pomagaj!« ali »Po- magaj Bog vsem!«.19 Kihanje naj bi napovedovalo, da ima človek kugo. To voščilo se je razširilo širom po Evropi. Tudi v An- gliji so, kot piše Jacqueline Simpson, v času kuge, ki je razsajala v 17. stoletju, začeli ljudje govoriti »Bless you!« ali »God help you!«, če je kdo kihnil, kar se je ohranilo do današnjih dni.20 Švedske povedke pripovedujejo, da je prišla kuga z juga v podobi majhnega lepega dečka, ki je strgal na železno strgalo, a je pustil, da je še ta ali oni v hiši ostal živ; za njim pa je prišlo kužno dekle (pestflicka), ki je pometala z metlo pred vrati, tedaj pa so vsi v vasi pomrli.21 16 Gunnell, Mists, Magicians, str. 49–50. 17 Bronner, Von deutscher Sitt, str. 262; po: Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 183. 18 Graber, Sagen aus Kärnten, št. 258; po: Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 184. 19 Beitl, Im Sagenwald, str. 65, št. 82; po: Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 184. 20 Simpson in Roud, A Dictionary of English Folklore, str. 280. 21 Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, str. 994; po: Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 187. 30 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–40 2022 V estonskem izročilu je bila kuga poosebljena v moški podobi, kot fant ali črni mož: /…/ Blizu Suure-Jaani je bil kmet iz kmetije Too- ba ravno v gozdu, ko je zagledal demona kuge, kako pleše in poje pod drevesi: »Pat-pat-pat do Paelamaa, kõps-kõps-kõps do Kõnnua, top-top-top do Tooba!« Kmet je razumel, da je bil to demon kuge in je rekel: »Pa poglejmo!« Šel je domov, vzel jerebikino gorjačo, vrezal je tri peterokrake zvezde vanjo in čakal. Sredi noči je nekdo prišel in prosil, da bi ga spustil noter. Kmet je odprl vrata in zagledal črnega moža. Kmet ga je začel mlatiti z gorjačo, dokler ga kužni demon ni prosil, naj ga spusti. Kmet je rekel: »Ko boš obljubil, da ne boš šel nikamor več, da bi moril, bom nehal.« Demon kuge je to obljubil in mož ga je nehal tepsti.22 Kot je razvidno iz predstavljenega izročila, so v zgodbah o kugi pogosto omenjeni kraji, kjer je kuga morila. Estonska folkloristka Reet Hiiemäe je ugo- tovila, da je v povedkah o nevarnih krajih – na primer krajih, kjer je omenjena širitev kuge – mogoče osno- vati mentalni zemljevid, ki pokriva pojavljanje nevar- nosti v regiji, ter izhod iz te nevarnosti.23 Prav tako je Timothy Tangherlini na osnovi skandinavskih pri- povedi o kugi ugotovil, da so ljudje na osnovi svojih verovanjskih predstav povsem logično s pripovedmi skušali mapirati pot širjenja demona kuge kot po- osebljene bolezni.24 Ljudje v Islandiji in tudi v nekaterih drugih evropskih državah so pripovedovali, da se kuga lahko prikazuje tudi v podobi megle, dima ali oblaka, ki se usede na dolino in mori ljudi ter živino, zato so si skušali rešiti življenje tako, da so bežali v gore.25 Kuga se da prenesti ali prepeljati in ne more sama čez vodo Pripovedi o kugi, ki po vnaprej določeni poti po- tuje v kraje, kamor se je namenila in se da prepeljati čez reko ali morje na otok, navajata tako Timothy Tangherlini v Skandinaviji (1988) kot Reet Hiiemäe v Estoniji (2016), dokumentirane pa so bile tudi v francosko-bretonskem, pruskem in poljskem izroči- lu. Tudi južni Slovani so pripovedovali, da kuga ne more sama preplavati reke ali morja, zato si preskrbi prevoz; številne pripovedi sta objavila Matija Valja- vec26 in Friedrich Krauß,27 na primer: Kuga dojde do jedne vode. Onda se je baš Sava razli- la pa neje mogla gaziti pa prosi jednoga človeka koji 22 Hiiemäe, Esti kratkupärimus, str. 124; Hiiemäe, Narative Maps, str. 180. 23 Hiiemäe, Narative Maps, str. 179–181. 24 Tangherlini, Ships, Fogs and Traveling Pairs. 25 Gunnell, Mists, Magicians, str. 49; Travner, Kuga na Sloven- skem, str. 76. 26 Valjavec, Narodne pripovjedke, str. 243. 27 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, str. 14; Krauß, Volksglaube, str. 64, 67. se je na čamcu vozil, da ju preveze ne znajuči da ima on psa pod gunjom. Prijel ju je v čamec i prične ve- slati. Kad na sredu vode dojde pes se prebudi, zagleda kugu i na nju nasrne. Kuga počne človeka prositi, da ju oslobodi, ali zaman, pes ju je tak dugo klal i grabil dok je ne vu vodu opala. Tak je komaj došla na drugi breg grozeča, da bu vre svoje rane osvetila samo dok ji psi pocrkaju. No hvala bogu, to skoro ne bu, ar je saki dan 'se više psov.28 V povedkah, v katerih je opisano, kako se je dala kuga prenašati ali prepeljati iz kraja v kraj, je pogosto omenjeno, da se je bala psov29 in mačk, odganjalo pa jo je tudi petelinje kikirikanje. Pred kugo so obvaro- vale tudi brinove veje: Kuga je prosila brodnika, ki je prepeljeval ljudi s Pri- morja na bližnji otok, naj njo samo prepelje čez morski preliv na ta otok. Ne bo mu storila nič žalega, če ji pa ne zaupa, naj naloži v sredo čolna, med seboj in Kugo, trnja in brinovega grmičja. Čolnar je to storil in se mu ni nič hudega zgodilo, vse naokoli pa je morila Kuga.30 Tovrstne pripovedi so navdihnile tudi slovenske- ga pesnika Antona Aškerca in njegovo balado »Po- nočna potnica«.31 Profilaktična dejanja in zdravila Kuga in agrarni rituali Spomin na stare agrarne rituale v južnoslovan- skem prostoru ohranja povedka o Kugi in Smrti, ki naj bi bili sestri, prišli naj bi iz Sarajeva. Ena je morila ljudi, druga jih odpelje na drugi svet. Nekoč sta nekemu možu obljubili, da mu ne bosta nič storili, če ju bo na hrbtu prenesel v dru- gi kraj, da ju psi nebi raztrgali. Med potjo ju kmet vpraša, kako bi se ljudje lahko rešili kuge? Odgovorili sta, da bi morali 12 fantov in 12 devic nagih vpreči v plug, s katerim bi mladi sedemkrat zaorali okoli vasi po isti brazdi. Ko ju je mož odložil, so še tisti dan številni ljudje v tem kraju pomrli, nato pa je po moževem nasvetu 24 fantov in deklet oralo okoli vasi in rešili so se kuge.32 Da so bile podobne pripovedi in rituali »zaoranja bolezni« znani tudi drugod v srednji in južni Evropi, potrjuje spomin na šego, ki se je v Loški dolini ohra- nila do konca 19. stoletja. Ženske so kužno bolezen 28 Valjavec, Narodne pripovjedke, str. 243; Krauß, Volksglaube, str. 64; po: Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 190. 29 Da se je kuga izogibala psov, omenja tudi bosansko in her- cegovsko izročilo; prim.: Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, str. 164. 30 Krauß, Volksglaube, str. 67; Grafenauer, Neték in »Ponočna potnica«, str. 190–191, op. 24. 31 Anton Aškerc, Ponočna potnica. Ljubljanski zvon 10/7, 1. 7. 1890, str. 385. 32 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, str. 25–30. 31 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–402022 zaorale tako, da so okoli vasi vlekle plug – ene prive- zanega okoli pasu, druge so ga držale za ročaj. Tako so zaorale brazdo trikrat okoli vasi.33 Tudi Aiša Softić je med bosanskimi in herce- govskimi rokopisi o kugi odkrila podobne načine obrambe pred to boleznijo. Ohranilo se je izročilo iz okolice Bosanske Gradiške: V vasi so našli dve sestri dvojčici in dva črna vola, ki ju je skotila ista krava. Čez noč je bilo treba nare- diti povsem nov plug, nato pa sta sestri povsem goli s tema dvema voloma in plugom zaorali eno brazdo okoli cele vasi. Tako so se obranili kuge.34 Aiša Softić poudarja, da ima pri tovrstnih izro- čilih pomembno vlogo magični krog ali ris, ki so ga zarisali okoli človeka, skupine ljudi ali v tem primeru okoli cele vasi, saj so verjeli, da so v zarisanem krogu ali risu varni pred zlimi silami. Vendar je imelo pri tej šegi posebno magično moč tudi oranje okoli vasi kot čarno dejanje, poleg tega je bilo pomembno, kdo je oral in kako je bilo oranje izvedeno. Zagovarjanje in apotropejska dejanja Eno redkih poročil o tem, kako so se ljudje bra- nili in zdravili pred kugo, je podal angleški pisatelj Daniel Defoe, ki je v knjigi A Journal of the Plague Year (Spomin na leto kuge, 1722) ohranil poročilo o življenju v Londonu leta 1665. Opisal je različna rastlinska zdravila, obrambne zagovore in omne proti kugi, pa tudi znamenja, ki napovedujejo kugo. Med preventivnimi zelišči omenja česen, vinsko rutico (Ruta graveolens), tobak in kis. V romanu govori tudi o magičnih listkih, na katerih so bili zapisani čarovni izreki in znaki, med drugim Abracadabra v trikotni- ku, ki so jih nosili v vrečkah okoli vratu ali privezane na osebo s številnimi vozli.35 Podobni pristopi so bili dokumentirani tudi dru- god v Evropi. V slovenskem prostoru poročila o za- govarjanju proti kugi segajo že v 16. stoletje. Tako je že goriški škof Pavel Bizancij leta 1583 v poročilu, ki ga je poslal oglejskemu patriarhu, napisal, da goriški Slovenci prakticirajo zagovarjanje proti kugi.36 Neke vrste zagovor oziroma zarotitev proti vsem kužnim boleznim se je ohranila v Zagovorni knjižici Jakoba Ranta iz Dolenčic v Poljanski dolini iz leta 1851 in se glasi tako: pokličem jest Jaka vimen Svetga Benedikta in vimen Tega Nar Svetišga Čez nebeške Moči nar Nar viso- kišiga Čez Svet zijan z zinaji Adonoji Attanatos Deous Bog tanar Močnejši U Presveti Trojici 33 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 130, 392. 34 Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, str. 163. 35 Simpson in Roud, A Dictionary of English Folklore, str. 280. 36 Gruden, Zgodovina slovenskega naroda, str. 1061; po: Mö- derndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 33. zpik = tro = ik = volf toje Aleluja Aleluja Aleluja trikrat križ naredit in trikrat gor dihnit še 4 nebeška znamenja se morja dat (. S ổ . . S S ổ S S o. L. ♀) vžit Nato se moli 7 očenašov h Čajsti Presvetej Tro- jici in teh Patronov.37 Proti kugi so se ljudje skušali zaščititi tudi z obrambnimi čarnimi znaki ali črkami ter izreki zo- per kugo, vendar se jih ni veliko ohranilo. Najstarejši znani slovenski »zapretek« proti kugi je zapisan v ko- roški Duhovni brauni (Duhovni brambi) iz leta 1740: Gospod Franzhiskus Salorius shkof v Salmonii je ana prizha de v leti 1547 se je sgodivo, da so utrenti per Conziliumu al rati ukupe bli sbrani shkofi in drugi kuoshterski tavishi, k so Rat dershali, da je she zhries 20 shkofou inu tok vishah na kugi umerlo, tedei je ta patriarh od Austicie, usam te prizhiozhe buhstabe ratou, kteri so od s. Zahariusa shkofa, v Jerusalem re- svoshani, inu sa kuo gorei sehranjeni bli, inu poterde- ni, to majo kako ano shishno pomuzh, kader je kuga de je imamo udrukano per sabe nositi. K so tu sturili ni obeden vezh na kugi umerou inu kader se bushtabi na ane duri sa shribajo, so usi pred kugo obuarani, kiri pod isto streho bonajo.38 Buhstabi sa kugo so leti: + ZDIA +BIZ +SAB + ZHGP + BFRS .39 Tovrstni obrambni čarovni znaki, t. i. »zapretki«, so bili – kot obramba pred kugo – razširjeni tudi v slovenskem prostoru. Svetniki – zaščitniki pred kugo Da bi premagali kugo, so ljudje začeli postavlja- ti kužna znamenja, cerkve in kapelice, posvečene zavetnikom pred kugo, predvsem sv. Roku, sv. Bo- štjanu, sv. Rozaliji, sv. Barbari in na Koroškem sv. Ožboltu.40 Kot je razvidno iz izročila, ki se je ohranilo v vasi Povir v občini Sežana, je imel moč nad kugo tudi sv. Fabijan: Kuga je v podobi črne deklice stala vrh hriba in kli- cala: »Fabjan, Boštjan, ko si ti močan, v Povirsko vas mi priti na daš!« 37 Zagovorna knjižica Jakoba Ranta po domače Kočarja v Do- lenčicah št. 9 v Poljanski dolini. Rokopis je iz leta 1851, hranil ga je Janez Dolenc; po: Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 23–24. 38 Gospod Franzhiskus Salorius je pričal, da so se leta 1547 zbrali škofi in drugi samostanski bratje pri konziliju. Ker je že 20 škofov in več višjih zaradi kuge umrlo, je patriarh iz Austicie svetoval vsem pričujoče črke (buhštabe), ki jih je škof Zaharius v Jeruzalemu potrdil kot hišno pomoč proti kugi. Nositi jih je treba natisnjene pri sebi, in ko so ljudje to storili, ni nobeden več za kugo umrl; in ko so jih napisali na vrata hiše, iz te hiše ni nobeden več za kugo umrl. 39 Dolenc, Zagovori, str. 45. 40 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 33. 32 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–40 2022 Cerkev sv. Roka v Dravljah in znamenje ob Celovški cesti v Ljubljani. Kužno znamenje iz leta 1743 v Mariboru na Glavnem trgu, delo Jožefa Strauba. Okoli Matere božje je razvrščenih šest svetnikov, priprošnjikov zoper kugo. Spomenik so postavili v zahvalo za konec kuge (1681), ki je v 17. stoletju terjala življenje tretjine prebivalstva. 33 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–402022 V cerkvi sv. Jakoba so namreč posebej častili svetega Boštjana in svetega Fabijana ter se jima priporočali zoper kugo.41 Leta 1644 je v Zapužah in Dravljah pri Ljubljani razsajala kuga. Zato so se prebivalci Draveljske so- seske zaobljubili, da bodo sezidali cerkev, h kateri je šla vsako leto na dan sv. Roka (16. avgusta) slovesna procesija, ki se je običajno končala z veselim prošče- njem.42 Baročni pridigar in pisec Janez Svetokriški je v pridigi, posvečeni svetemu Roku, v zbirki pridig Sacrum promptuarium (1691) pisal o kugi, ki je mori- la v slovenskem prostoru, ter o procesijah, ki so se jih ljudje udeleževali na ta dan, da bi jih sv. Rok obvaro- val pred to strašno boleznijo.43 Zapornice in karantene Po ljudskem izročilu naj bi že samo križ, ki so ga postavili na pot ali pred predor, ki je vodil v drugo pokrajino, lahko pripomogel, da se kuga tam ni raz- širila. O tem pripoveduje koroško izročilo: Cesta iz Mežice v Črno je vodila skozi predor, na katerga so postavili križ, nekaj časa preden je zače- la razsajati kuga. Križ je zabranil kugi pot v Črno, druge poti iz Mežice v Črno ni bilo.44 Včasih pa so bile kršitve prepovedi prehajanja v drugi kraj, kjer kuga še ni izbruhnila, zelo ostre in so zahtevale človeško žrtev: Pred več sto leti je razsajala v Mežici kuga. Da bi se ta strašna bolezen ne razširila še po drugih kra- jih, je stala pri Rehtu vojaška straža, ki je morala paziti, da ni šel kdo iz vasi. Pri Kajžarjevem križu, na desnem bregu Meže, so skopali globoko jamo in zagrozili, da bodo vsakogar, ki bi prišel do te jame in hotel v vas, živega pokopali. Kajžar je imel prelepo hčerko. Ta lepotica je prišla prva do te jame in hotela v Mežico po opravkih. Vo- jaki so jo zgrabili in vrgli v jamo. Kljub milim pro- šnjam in pretresljivemu joku so jo kruti vojaki živo pokopali. Od tistega časa je kuga ponehala. Vojaki in ljudje so bili prepričani, da se je kuga spremenila v lepo Kajžarjevo hčer in da je samo zaradi tega pre- nehala razsajati.45 Pripoved, ki se je ohranila v Treibachu na Av- strijskem Koroškem, govori o nesrečni usodi žrtve – deklice, ki so jo vrgli v jamo in živo pokopali, da bi preprečili širjenje kuge. V spomin na kugo, ki je tedaj razsajala, na pokopališču pri cerkvi sv. Kozme 41 Zgodnja Danica 33, 10. 9. 1880, str. 294; po Kropej, Od ajda, str. 300. 42 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, str. 82. 43 Svetokriški, Sacrum promptuarium, str. 53–54. 44 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, str. 62. 45 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, str. 61. in Damijana pri stolpu še danes stoji plošča, na kateri je vklesano: »Kuga 1715«. Tega leta je namreč divjala kuga in ljudje so jo skušali zaustaviti: Ko je bila leta 1715 kuga v deželi, so vaščani skleni- li izkopati pred cerkvijo, medtem ko je trajala maša, jarek, v katerega bodo zagrebli živega tistega, ki bi prvi stopil iz cerkve, preden se je maša končala. Ne- srečo je imela deklica, ki je hitela domov še pred kon- cem maše, ker je imela doma bolno mater. Zakopali so jo živo, kuga pa zaradi tega ni prišla v ta kraj.46 V mestih so se ljudje pred kugo branili s stražami pred obzidji in prepovedjo vstopa tujcem ter bera- čem. Kužne straže, kot so jih imenovali, ljudem in blagu niso dovoljevale prehoda brez zdravstvenih spričeval, imenovanih »fede«. Če je prišel kdo iz oku- ženih krajev, so ga poslali v lazaretno hišico, da je prestal predpisano karanteno.47 Izbruh še tako lokal- no omejene epidemije je praviloma povzročil zaprtje deželnih meja in močno omejitev oziroma ustavitev prometa, zaradi česar je trpelo celotno deželno go- spodarstvo.48 Viri poročajo, da so leta 1598 ob ponovnem na- glem širjenju kuge v Ljubljani z deskami ogradili kra- kovsko vas, da je bila popolnoma odrezana od sveta, pa tudi druga naselja, kjer se je pojavila kuga. Hiše, kjer je bila kuga, so zakrižali z velikimi Andrejevimi križi, ki so jih narisali na vhodna vrata.49 Zaščita z rastlinami in apotropejska dejanja Kadar se je pojavila kužna bolezen, so se ljudje skušali pred njo zavarovati tudi tako, da so prostore v hiši in hlevih pokadili z brinjem (Juniperus communis) in ogljem, ki so mu dodali spika (Valeriana celtica), mire (Commiphore) in kadila.50 Pred kugo naj bi ob- varovalo tudi brušenje kose, kot so verjeli ljudje na Štajerskem.51 V Trebiji v Poljanski dolini na Gorenjskem so kot obrambo pred kugo obleko umrlega za kugo najprej za tri dni zakopali v zemljo, nato so jo za tri dni obe- sili na streho, da jo je obseval mesec, potem pa so jo še za tri dni izpostavili na sončen kraj, da jo je obse- valo sonce.52 Po nasvetu »Večne Pratike« naj bi kugo poma- gala preprečiti tudi prehrana. Opustiti je bilo treba kuhana zelišča: špinačo, kislico, cikorijo, luk, janež, peteršilj in žajbelj. Treba se je bilo vzdržati osoljenih rib, gob, vsakega mesa, slanine, starega gnilega sira, dinj in čebule. Opustiti je bilo treba pitje pijač, kot so 46 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 33. 47 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, str. 84. 48 Golec, Kužne epidemije, str. 26. 49 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, str. 82. 50 Košir, Ljudska medicina, str. 30; po Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 23. 51 Pajek, Črtice, str. 84. 52 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 31. 34 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–40 2022 jabolčni in hruškov mošt, trdo vino,53 žgano vino54 in prekuhana voda.55 Pred kugo je obvarovalo tudi pi- tje v vinu prevrete kervoščenke (Chelidonium maius). Pomagalo je pitje soka iz listov in korenin ženskega vrednika (Teucrium chamaedrys). Učinkovit pa je bil tudi prah listov in korenin te rastline v vinu. Premož- nejši so v vino namočili olupke citrone (Citrus limo- num) in pomaranče (Citrus aurantium). Pred kugo sta varovala sveža rutica (Ruta graveo- lens) in želod. Tudi tisti, ki je na tešče vzel korenino angelike (Angelica silvestris) – »svetiga duha koreni- no« –, se je zaščitil pred kugo. Zelo uveljavljeno zdra- vilo je bil piberc, imenovan tudi bedrunc ali žlahtnik – to je travniška rastlina navadni bedrenec (Pimpinel- la saxifraga), ki je podobna kumini in ima zdravilne korenine z močnim – popru podobnim – pekočim okusom. Iz njegovih korenin in listja so si kuhali čaj. V Rožu na Avstrijskem Koroškem je bil piberc znan tudi kot zdravilo proti koleri, ki je za ljudi pomeni- la podobno grožnjo kot kuga. Ohranila se je sledeča zgodba: Tudi v Rožu je včasih strašna kolera morila ljudi, da so padali kakor muhe. Pri vsaki hiši so imeli mrliče, nekatere hiše pa so popolnoma izumrle. Tudi pri koči Markele so že pokopali gospodarja, gospodinjo, njune otroke in le stari ded je še sedel žalosten na klopci pred hišo. Ko je razmišljal o usodi svojih otrok, je priletela ptica, ki je vztrajno vpila: »Bedrunc, bedrunc, bedrunc!« Mož ni vedel, kaj naj bi ta klic pomenil. Ptica je od- letela in se kmalu zopet vrnila ter spustila iz kljuna zel, ki je podobna čemeni (kumini). Starček je to zel pobral in jo šel potem še nabirat. Iz korenin tega ze- lišča je naredil zavrelico in jo pil. Črna smrt se ga ni prijela in tudi drugih ljudi ne, ki so pili tak čaj ali pa so si s to vodo izpirali usta. To zel so potem imenovali bedrunc (Pimpinella saxifraga)! Od tega časa kolera ne mori več tako hudo ljudi, ki poznajo to zdravilo.56 Piberc so nosili tudi v žepih, podoben apotropej- ski učinek pa sta imela tudi česen in brinje, če si ju imel pri sebi v žepu. Na Koroškem so ga namakali v žganje in stekleničko takega žganja nosili kar s seboj. Na Štajerskem so nosili s seboj seme kurjega očesa ali kuroslepa (Anagallis phoenicca), ki je odganjalo tudi hude duhove. Okoli vratu so si obesili križ svetega Benedikta.57 Za časa kuge so si nosnice, oči, ušesa, senci in žile zavarovali z vinskim kisom, v katerega so namočili vinsko rutico in bezgove jagode.58 Zdravilna moč sonca in medu je predstavljena v povedki iz Mežice na Koroškem: 53 Vino, ki vsebuje veliko kisline, čreslovine, navadno tudi več alkohola. 54 Konjak ali vinjak. 55 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 31. 56 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, str. 62–63. 57 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 32. 58 Prav tam, str. 30. Zaradi kuge so izumrli v Mežici vsi ljudje, samo pri Pustniku je še ostal en sam človek pri življenju. Ta se je branil kuge tako, da se je hranil samo z medom in se vsak dan sončil tako, da je polegal ob vznožju klanca na trebuhu.59 Za naravno razkužilo je veljal ogenj. Ponekod je, kadar je razsajala kužna bolezen, moral vsak tujec, ki je prišel v kraj, mimo ognja in šele nato so ga spustili, da je prišel v stik z ljudmi. Na Dolenjskem pa je vsak kresovalec na kresni večer v želji, da bi bil obvaro- van pred kugo, trikrat preskočil kresni ogenj. V Beli krajini so še nedavno tega ob kugi zakurili kres na dvorišču in gonili živino preko njega.60 Na Štajerskem se je do konca 19. stoletja ohranila stara šega, da so na veliko noč zjutraj zažigali kresove, imenovane vuzenice, ob tem pa so trdno verjeli, da do koder sega dim teh kresov, do tja ne bo prišla kuga in tudi ajda ne bo pozebla.61 Tudi voda je imela podobno obrambno moč pred kugo kot ogenj. V Motniku na Gorenjskem so bili prepričani, da se jih kuga ne bo prijela leto dni, če bodo na veliko soboto, še preden so »odvezali zvono- ve«, stekli k tekoči vodi in se v njej umili.62 Zdravljenje Kugo so zdravili predvsem z zdravilnimi rastli- nami, kisom, vinom, medom, tobakom in številnimi drugimi naravnimi učinkovinami. Na podeželju so se ljudje obračali predvsem na vaške zdravilce, padar- je in vrače, saj so bili zdravniki težko dosegljivi ter so zdravili predvsem bolnike v mestih in gradovih. V času epidemije kuge so se zdravniki odeli v po- sebna varovana oblačila, da se ne bi še sami okužili. Oblečeni so bili v usnje, na glavi pa so imeli masko z zastekljenimi odprtinami za oči. Dolgi kljun so za- polnili z različnimi dišečimi zelišči, ki naj bi ščitila pred okužbo.63 Kuga je v Ljubljani morila že v letih 1198 in 1230, najhujša pa je bila med letoma 1347 in 1350. Nato se je v Ljubljani pojavila v letih 1568 in 1569, ob njenem ponovnem izbruhu leta 1586 pa so ob zidu šentpeterskega pokopališča na bregu Ljublja- nice postavili majhen lazaret; pozneje so lazaretske hišice še širili in zgradili kužno bolnišnico.64 Zdravili so se z zelišči; že Valvasor je v »Slavi voj- vodine Kranjske« pisal o rastlini repuh (Petasites of- ficinalis), ki raste ob vodah in dolinah ob Šmarjeških toplicah in naj bi ozdravila neozdravljive bolezni, tudi kugo. Tam piše, da ni mogoče dovolj prehvali- 59 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, str. 62. 60 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 31. 61 Pajek, Črtice, str. 84. 62 Letopis Matice Slovenske 1887, str. 88–167; po Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 32. 63 Golec, Kužne epidemije, str. 37. 64 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, str. 81. 35 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–402022 ti korenin angelike (Angelica silvestris) zaradi njene zdravilne moči proti kugi. Piše tudi, da na Kranjskem domača zemlja ponuja zelišča, ki premagajo kugo. To so, poleg že navedenih, še: Doronicum, Pimpinella saxifraga, Scorzonera, Galera, Veronica, Juniperus com- munis, Succisa, Gentiana, Potentilla erecta, Veleriana, Chelidonium maius in Imperatoria ostruthium.65 Vinko Möderndorfer je na Koroškem zapisal pri- poved o že omenjeni rastlini Pimpinella saxifraga, ki naj bi ljudi ozdravila kuge: Ljudje niso poznali nobenega zdravila proti kugi. Prileteli pa so od nekod ptiči, Mežičanom popolnoma neznani, ki so klicali: »Piberc jej, piberc jej!« Ljudje so potem res jemali piberc (Pimpinella saxifraga) za zdravilo in okrevali.66 Cenjen je bil tudi šterkovc ali starkoz (Arum ma- culatum), iz njegovih listov in korenin so iztisnili sok, ki so mu dodali sladkor. Pili so ga vsako jutro in večer ter verjeli, da bo pregnal kugo, vročino in druge kuž- ne bolezni.67 Ob kugi in vročinskih boleznih so priporočali še vino s sokom listov in korenin šterkovca, vino, v katerem je bil kuhan žlahtnik (Pimpinella saxifra- ga). Pomagala naj bi tudi prah iz ženskega vrednjaka (Teucrium chamaedrys)68 ter voda iz kislice in terjaka (sok črnega bezga s sladkorjem). V Murski Soboti so se proti kugi zdravili z bo- rovico (Pinus) in sladkim janežem (Pimpinella anisum).69 Prav tako so priporočali vsako jutro in ve- čer popiti »ehrenpreisovo vodo« z dodanim prahom zdrobljenega jetičnika (Veronica officinalis);70 kuhali pa so tudi vinsko juho in ji dodali česen. Čislano zdravilo je bilo kraljevo jajce ali zlato jajce, ki so ga pripravili iz rumenjaka, terjakovega čaja iz bezgovih jagod in žafrana.71 Ponekod so na kužni mehur kot zdravilo polagali beljak ali posušeno slivo, v Murski Soboti pa so dali na kužne rane posušene krapavice (krastače).72 V času kuge so zelo cenili krastačo, češ da vleče kužni strup nase. Zato so krastače nekateri kuhali v mleku ali kisu, jih pojedli ali dajali kot obliž na kužne rane. Krastače so v ta namen lovili med šmarnimi mašami.73 Pripovedovali so, da je neka ženska, ko je jeseni 1680 okoli Leskovca v Halozah razsajala kuga, ne- kemu možu, ki je obolel za kugo, svetovala, naj v kisu skuha žabo krapavico (krastačo). Kmet je ubogal, po- 65 Valvasor, Die Ehre, III, str. 377–380; po: Möderndorfer, Ljud- ska medicina, str. 34. 66 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, str. 62; Kelemina, Bajke in pripovedke, str. 395, op. 196/VII. 67 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 23, 34. 68 Prav tam, str. 34. 69 Slovenski gospodar 18/12, 20. 3. 1884, str. 94. 70 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 23. 71 Prav tam, str. 34. 72 Slovenski gospodar 18/12, 20. 3. 1884, str. 94. 73 Gruden, Zgodovina slovenskega naroda, str. 1076; po Mödern- dorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 34. jedel krastačo in spil juho, v kateri se je kuhala. Nato se je hudo potil, naslednje jutro pa je bil zdrav. To se je brž razvedelo po soseski in krapavica je zaslovela kot najzanesljivejše zdravilo proti kugi. Po vseh Ha- lozah so lovili krapavice, jih kuhali in tudi žive nosili s seboj.74 Proti kugi so uporabljali tudi jelenove in gam- sove rogove, žveplo in vitriol v obliki praškov, pijač, obližev in obkladkov.75 »Večna pratika« je priporo- čala nositi okoli vratu vrečice s prahom stolčenega pajka (Araneida) ali krastače (Bufo vulgaris) in kačji kamen.76 Na romarskih potih so ljudje na Koroškem kupovali male podobice Matere Božje, ki so jih dajali bolnikom v jed, da bi se rešili kuge.77 Ohranil se je tudi spomin na zdravljenje kuge s čarovnim dejanjem, imenovanim »zabijanje kuge« v drevo. Ljudje so namreč verjeli, da lahko demona bolnikove bolezni premaga pozitivni duh drevesa. V ta namen so zvrtali luknjo v drevo (lipa, hrast ali vrba), ki je veljalo za sveto. Naslednji dan so ob sonč- nem vzhodu v luknjo položili delček bolnikove krvi, nohtov ali las, nato so zamašili luknjo in jo zabili z žebljem. S tem so »pribili bolezen« in upali, da bo duh drevesa premagal bolezenskega demona.78 Kuga mori živino Tako kot med ljudmi je kuga razsajala tudi med živino. Živinsko kugo so si ljudje predstavljali v žival- ski podobi, predvsem v podobi svinje, koze ter teleta s pisanimi lisami in tremi nogami.79 Medtem ko je spomin na kugo, ki je morila ljudi, v 19. stoletju marsikje že obledel, so v Prekmurju še v 90. letih 20. stoletja pripovedovali, da je kuga kazen božja, ki hodi po svetu, od vasi do vasi, od hiše do hiše in mori živino v hlevih ter kokoši po kokošnjakih. V davnih časih pa je morila tudi ljudi, zato so se zapirali pred njo v hiše ter jo z molitvami in vražami odganjali od sebe.80 Prav tako v Prekmurju se je ohranila pripoved, ki sporoča, da so si ljudje kugo, ki mori živino, predstav- ljali v podobi pisanega teleta: Küga Kuga je podobna velikemu pisanemu teletu. Najraje se prikaže na dvorišču ali pa v ogradi. Njena pri- kazen vselej nesrečo pomeni. Krava ali kako drugo živinče pogine pri tisti hiši, kjer se je kuga prikazo- vala. Včasih se tudi zgodi, da kuga človeka zavaja, da ponoči kam gre. Tako je zavajala nekega bratonskega rojara (čebelarja), Špilaka, da je k ulnjaku (panju) 74 Slovenski gospodar, 1885, str. 198; po Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 32. 75 Valvasor, Die Ehre, III, str. 377; po: Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 34. 76 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 32. 77 Košir, Ljudska medicina, str. 103. 78 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 78–79. 79 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, str. 36. 80 Rešek, Brezglavjeki, str. 91, št. 35. 36 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–40 2022 šel, pa ko je nazaj domov prišel, mu je najlepša krava poginila.81 V zgoraj navedeni povedki so ljudje goveji kugi pripisovali tudi lastnosti bajeslovnih bitij, ki so ljudi speljala s poti, tako kot čarovnice ali nočne lučke. Po drugi pripovedi, prav tako iz Prekmurja, pa naj bi bila kuga velika kot tele, bele barve, ponoči naj bi tavala okoli in lajala kot pes. Če je hodila okoli na- selij, so umirali ljudje in živali v vasi. Goveja kuga je bela in ima govejo glavo, svinjska kuga je bela in ima svinjsko glavo.82 V hlevih so za tramove zatikali blagoslovljene šibe proti svinjski kugi. Da svinje ne bi zbolele, so v hlev obesili tudi krastačo. V slovenski Istri še danes na številne hleve kot obrambne maske pribijajo konjske glave in konjske podkve. V Beli kra- jini so jih pribijali tudi na čebelnjake, na hlevska vrata pa narobe obrnjeno metlo, vrata pa so na drobno pre- badali z nožem.83 V Dražgošah so na hlevska vrata nabili križ sv. Benedikta, v Podjuni na Avstrijskem Koroškem pa so na vrata obesili iz lesa izrezljano tatrmanovo84 glavo.85 Slovenci ob Rabi (v Porabju) so živini v ro- gove zvrtali luknje in vanje vtaknili lističe z raznimi obrambnimi uroki »zapretki«.86 V 18. stoletju je bila v slovenskem prostoru pogo- sto uporabljana knjiga živinozdravnika in ranocelni- ka Johannesa Gottlieba Wolsteina, ki jo je v sloven- ščino prevedel Ljubljančan Jožef Ignacij Fanton de Brunn, veterinar kranjske province in fizik v Idriji, ki je knjigo leta 1784 poslovenil pod naslovom Bu- kuvze od shvinskih bolesni sa kmeteshke ludy.87 Pozneje je prevod knjige popravil Anton Tomaž Linhart in jo izdal pod naslovom Bukve od kug inu bolesen Goveje shivine, tih Ovaz inu Svin; knjiga je izšla leta 1792 v Ljubljani in vsebuje tudi nasvete za zdravljenje ži- vinske kuge. Živino so torej proti kugi zdravili tudi z zelišči. V Loških hribih se je še v novejši čas ohranila pra- ksa, da so na sveti večer in velikonočno soboto hrani za živino primešali korenine planinskega encijana (Gentiana), najpogosteje pa brinje in česen,88 da bi od živali odvrnili kugo. Namesto zaključka Ker se je kuga pogosto širila z vojsko, na Balka- nu še posebej z otomanskimi vdori, se je potem, ko 81 Kühar, Narodno blago, str. 58, št. 50; ponatis: Kühar, Ljudsko izročilo, str. 148. 82 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 29. 83 Prav tam, str. 32. 84 Tatrman je bil na Koroškem – pogosto v podobi povodnega moža – upodabljan v apotropejske namene na vodnjakih in poslopjih. 85 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 32. 86 Prav tam, str. 32. 87 Štrekelj, Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva, str. 465. 88 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, str. 29. so bili Turki dokončno potisnjeni iz srednjega Po- donavja, umaknila iz naših krajev.89 Vendar pa so se namesto nje začele širiti druge epidemije, predvsem kolera, koze, trebušni tifus, španska gripa in danes pandemija COVID-19. Čeprav je razvoj znanosti in predvsem tehnološki napredek sodobnega razvi- tega sveta že močno izbrisal spomin na kugo, ga je pandemija COVID-19 ponovno oživila; kuga se je povrnila v mentalni diskurz ljudi. Razmere so spod- budile spomine na že pozabljeno pripovedno izroči- lo, literaturo in likovno umetnost, ki se navezuje na ta obdobja. V težkih situacijah, kakršna je izbruh epidemije ali celo pandemije, se ljudje prilagajajo nastalim raz- meram in iščejo pot iz krize. V vsakodnevnih praksah in pripovedih lahko prepoznavamo, kako so se ljudje skušali braniti pred kužno epidemijo in kako so bole- zen zdravili. Epidemije iz preteklih obdobij so v izro- čilu obravnavane z veliko resnostjo in zaskrbljenostjo. Po drugi strani je iz povedk o epidemiji kuge čutiti velik strah ljudi, kugo pogosto predstavljajo v perso- nificirani podobi in pripovedujejo, kako se je širila, kam se je namenila, kako je potovala, delovala ipd. Zanimivo je, da kljub večstoletnemu časovnemu zamiku danes opažamo veliko podobnih načinov obrambe: zapornice, zapiranje meja, karantena, kazni za prekršitev pravil, seznam učinkovin in prehran- skih sestavin, ki naj bi pomagale proti tej bolezni ipd. Večje razlike so v pripovedni kulturi, ki se danes širi večinoma kar prek svetovnega spleta,90 predvsem pa je očiten velik napredek v zdravstvu. VIRI IN LITERATURA ČASOPISI Letopis Matice Slovenske, 1887. Slovenski gospodar, 1884, 1885. Zgodnja Danica, 1880. LITERATURA Aškerc, Anton: Ponočna potnica. Ljubljanski zvon 10/7, 1. 7. 1890, str. 385. Beitl, Richard: Im Sagenwald. Neue Sagen aus Vorarl- berg. Feldkirch: Montfort Verlag, 1953. Bronner, F. J.: Von deutscher Sitt und Art. Volkssitten und Volksbräuche in Bayern im Kreislauf des Jahres dargestellt. München: Kellner, 1908. Bühli, Arnold: Sagen aus Graubünden 1, 2. Aarau: Verlag Sauerländer, 1933, 1935. Christiansen, Reidar Th.: The Migratory Legends. A Proposed List of Types with a Systematic Catalogue of the Norwegian Variants (FF Communications 89 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, str. 84. 90 Več o tem: Kropej Telban, Emotions of Fear (v tisku). 37 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–402022 175). Helsinki: Academia scientiarum Fennica, 1958. Dolenc, Milan: Zagovori v slovenski ljudski medicini ter zarotitve in apokrifne molitve (ur. Zvonka Zu- panič Slavec in Marija Makarovič). Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgodovino medicine Medicinske fa- kultete Univerze v Ljubljani, 1999. Drobnič, Josip: Slovenska pripovedka o Neteku. Kmetijske in rokodelske novice 5/7, 1847, str. 24. Golec, Boris: Kužne epidemije na Dolenjskem med izročilom in stvarnostjo. Kronika 49, 2001, št. 1–2, str. 23–64. Graber, Georg: Sagen aus Kärnten. Gesammelt und herausgegeben von Dr. Georg Graber. Leipzig: Dieterich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Theodor Weischer, 1914. Grafenauer, Ivan: Neték in »Ponočna potnica« v ljudski pripovedki. Razprave Razreda (II.) za filo- loške in literarne vede IV. Ljubljana: SAZU, 1958, str. 157–201. Grimm, Jacob: Deutsche Mythologie. Göttingen: Die- terichsche Buchhandlung, 1835. Grimm, Jacob in Grimm, Wilhelm: Deutsche Sagen, herausgegeben von den Brüdern Grimm, vol. 1. Ber- lin: In der Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, 1816. Gruden, Josip: Zgodovina slovenskega naroda. V Ce- lovcu: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1910–1916. Gunnell, Terry: Mists, Magicians and Murderous Children: International Migratory Legends Con- cerning the “Black Death” in Iceland. Northern Lights. Following Folklore in North-Western Eu- rope (ur. Séamas Ó Catháin). Dublin: University College Dublin Press 2001, str. 47–59. Hiiemäe, Reet: Esti katkupärimus [Estonian Plague Tradition]. Tartu: Estonian Literary Museum, 1997. Hiiemäe, Reet: Narrative Maps of Danger as a Me- ans of Subjective Protection. Etnološka tribina 39, 2016, št. 46, 176–186. Kelemina, Jakob: Bajke in pripovedke slovenskega ljud- stva. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1930. Košir, Pavel: Ljudska medicina na Koroškem. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 17, 1922, str. 20–32. Krauß, Friedrich S.: Südslavische Pestsagen. (Separat- abdruck aus dem XIII. Bande [Neue Folge III. Band] der »Mittheilungen der Anthropologi- schen Geselschaft in Wien«). Wien: Verlag des Verfassers, 1883. Krauß, Friedrich Salomon: Volksglaube und religiöser Brauch der Südslaven vorwiegend nach eigenen Er- mittlungen. Münster: Münster, 1890. Kropej, Monika: Od ajda do zlatoroga. Slovenska ba- jeslovna bitja. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2008. Kropej Telban, Monika: Emotions of Fear in the Narratives about the Plague and the Contem- porary Pandemic. Studia mythologica Slavica 25, 2022 (v tisku). Kühar, Števan: Národno blágo vogrskij Slovancof. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 8, 1911, str. 47–76. Kühar, Števan: Ljudsko izročilo Prekmurja (zbral in uredil Vilko Novak). Murska Sobota: Pomurska založba, 1988. Mal, Josip: Stara Ljubljana in njeni ljudje. Kulturno- zgodovinski oris. Ljubljana: Mestni muzej Ljub- ljana, 1957. Möderndorfer, Vinko: Koroške narodne pripovedke. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1940. Möderndorfer, Vinko: Ljudska medicina pri Sloven- cih (Classis II, Gradivo za narodopisje Sloven- cev). Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1964. Pajek, Josip: Črtice iz duševnega žitka štaj. Slovencev. Ljubljana: Blasnik, 1884. Rešek, Dušan: Brezglavjeki. Ljubljana: Kmečki glas, 1995. Simpson, Jacqueline in Roud, Steven: A Dictionary of English Folklore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Slekovec, Matej: Kuga na slovenskem štajerskem. Slovenski gospodar 17/18, 3. 5. 1883, str. 142. Softić, Aiša: Zapisi usmenih predaja o kugi u Bosni i Hercegovini s kraja 19. stoljeća. Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja / Jahrbuch. Zentrum für Balkanforschungen 49 (ur. Blagoje Govedarica). Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 2020, str. 155–169. Svetokriški, Janez: Sacrum promptuarium (ur. Mirko Rupel). Koper: Lipa, 1991. Štrekelj, Karel: Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva I–II; III–IV (ur. Matija Ogrin). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2012, 2014. Tangherlini, Timothy R.: Ships, Fogs and Traveling Pairs. Plague Legend Migration in Scandinavia. The Journal of American Folklore 101 (400), 1988, str. 176–206. Travner, Vladimir: Kuga na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Življenje in svet, 1934. Trdina, Janez: Verske bajke na Dolenjskem: Netek. Ljubljanski zvon 1/9, 1. 9. 1881, str. 537. Valjavec, Matija: Narodne pripovjedke skupio u i oko Varaždina Matija Kračmanov Valjavec. U Varaž- dinu: Josip pl. Platzer, 1858. Valvasor, Johann Weichard: Die Ehre des Herzog- thums Krain. I–IV. Laybach, Nürenberg: 1689. 38 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–40 2022 S U M M A R Y Folktales about the Plague and Healing Practices against It in Narrative Folklore Folktales about the plague have been preserved in oral tradition as depictions of conditions imposed by the plague epidemic as well as protection against the disease and its treatment or as folktales about the Plague—the demon that killed people and cattle. The set of plague motifs in folktales was already cat- alogued by the Norwegian folklorist Reidar Chris- tiansen in his “Migratory Legends” (1958) under points 7080–7095. However, as materials preserved in the archives of research institutions and in printed sources suggest, folktales about the plague were the- matically much more diverse. One of the few Slove- nian folklorists who wrote about the plague accom- panied by hunger personified as the insatiable fabled creature Netek was Ivan Grafenauer (1958). The plague was often associated with hunger in the form of the Netek in Slovenian folklore. Similar folktales have been preserved in the Alpine region, especially in Central Europe, among the Rhaeto-Romance people in Switzerland, and in Vorarlberg in Austrian Alps in the form of a voracious little man, the Glut- ton. Oral traditions in other regions reported on this, too. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the plague was said to be followed by a year of hunger (Softić 2020). In fearful expectation of the plague, believed to roam around in the shape of a woman, Rumanian farmers would leave plenty of food on the side of the road for all travelers to fend off the arrival of the disease. In the European area, the plague was personified as a woman, a man, a boy, a girl, or a plague pair. Where the word “death” is of masculine gender, the plague was often presented as a man, and where it is assigned female gender, the plague, too, was analo- gously featured as a woman. Similarly widespread were the notions of a plague pair, a husband and a wife wandering from place to place together, bring- ing the plague. In the German folktale from Sch- weinfurt on the river Main, male Death cut grass and his wife, female Death (the Plague) raked. Similar folktales were also documented in Bavaria in Ger- many and in Austrian Carinthia. Swedish folktales narrate about the plague com- ing from the south in the form of a beautiful little boy, followed by a plague damsel (pestflicka), who passed her broom for the last time in front of the gate, causing everyone in the village to die. In Estonian folklore, the plague was personified as a man, a boy, or a black man. According to Reet Hiiemäe, legends about places where the spread of the plague is mentioned may be used to establish a mental map indicating areas where the plague threat emerged as well as possibilities to escape from it or prevent its arrival. In Europe, there were widely held conceptions that the Plague was unable to cross a body of water by itself and that it frequently let itself be carried or transferred to another place. Timothy Tangherlini observes that Scandinavians often narrated about the plague traveling a predesignated route to selected destinations and letting itself be ferried across a river or sea to an island. Similar folktales were document- ed in the Franco-Breton, Prussian, and Polish tradi- tions. They were commonly known among South- ern Slavs, many of which were published by Matija Valjavec and Friedrich Krauß, and they also inspired the Slovenian poet Anton Aškerc (Ponočna potnica, 1890). Folktales frequently mention that the plague feared dogs and cats, and that it was repelled by the rooster’s crow. The memory has also been preserved of the an- cient Southern Slavic agrarian ritual of “plowing out” the plague. To ward off the disease, people “plowed” it in various ways, for example, women by dragging the plows around the village and creating the same furrow three times. The folklore from the surround- ings of Bosanska Gradiška narrates about twin sisters and two black oxen being found in a village. A new plow had to be built overnight and then the sisters, completely naked, plowed a furrow around the entire village. This custom ascribed magic powers not only to the circle drawn to protect against evil forces but also and above all to dragging the plow around the village as a magic act, where it was also important who performed the plowing and how. People also tried to protect themselves against the plague with incantations and defensive magic symbols or letters and spells against the plague, very few of which have been preserved. The oldest known Slovenian charm against the plague is contained in the Carinthian Duhovna brauna (Spiritual Defense) from 1740. People also wore pouches around their necks, with incantations, charms, and magic symbols sown in to keep the plague away. To overcome the pestilence, people erected plague columns, churches, and chapels dedicated to patron saints against the plague, especially St. Roch, St. Sebastian, St. Rosalie, and St. Barbara, as well as St. Oswald in Carinthia. Violations of the ban on traveling to other places where the plague had not yet erupted could some- times be very serious, and they could also result in death. A tale, preserved in Treibach in Austrian Carinthia, narrates about the misfortunate destiny of a girl that was thrown into a pit and buried alive to stop the plague from spreading. Plague guards post- ed in towns prohibited passage to people and goods without health certificates, called “fede.” Most of all, however, people protected themselves 39 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–402022 against the plague and cured it with herbal reme- dies and apotropaic acts. Houses and barns were smoked with juniper ( Juniperus communis) and charcoal, mixed with Alpine valerian (Valeriana celt- ica), myrrh (Commiphore), and incense. Regarding plants, special healing powers were ascribed to gar- lic, burnet-saxifrage (Pimpinella saxifraga), angelica (Angelica silvestris), butterbur (Petasites officinalis), starch-root (Arum maculatum), and heath speedwell (Veronica officinalis). Toads (Bufo vulgaris), spider (Araneida), and snake stone were also used as medi- cines or apotropaic remedies. In such difficult situations as epidemic or even pandemic outbreaks, people adapt to the new cir- cumstances and seek a way out of the crisis. Daily practices and narratives provide an insight into how people sought to protect themselves against the plague epidemic and how they cured the disease. 40 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU, 27–40 2022 41 2022 IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA * Prispevek je posodobljena različica objave v reviji Kronika 49, 2001, št. 1–2, str. 23–64. UDK 616.9(497.4 Dolenjska)"15/17" Boris Golec prof. dr., znanstveni svetnik, ZRC SAZU, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana E-pošta: bgolec@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0367-0141 Kužne epidemije na Dolenjskem med izročilom in stvarnostjo* IZVLEČEK Prispevek obravnava posledice kužnih epidemij na Dolenjskem, v tistem delu Kranjske, kjer so kuge med 16. in 18. stoletjem zlasti v mestih zahtevale največ žrtev. S soočenjem sodobnih virov in pretiranih sumarnih navedb o številu umrlih so demografske posledice epidemij v večini primerov dobile realnejšo podobo. Kuga je zaradi začasnega zaprtja prometnic povzročila največ škode na gospodarskem področju, vendar je bila v posameznih primerih resnično zelo pogubna tudi za ljudi. Z viri potrjeni deleži umrlega mestnega prebivalstva so med različnimi izbruhi kuge presegali eno petino. Leta 1599 in 1625 je kužna epidemija dodobra izpraznila Novo mesto, v letih 1646–1647 huje prizadela Metliko in Krško, 1691–1692 pa Črnomelj. Tudi človeške žrtve zadnje velike (kužne) epidemije leta 1715 niso bile zanemarljive. KLJUČNE BESEDE kuga, epidemije, Dolenjska, mesta, trgi ABSTRACT PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY The contribution deals with the consequences of infectious epidemics in Lower Carniola, thar is in the part of Car- niola where plaques between the 16th and 18th centuries took the most victims. By confronting contemporary sources and the exaggerated summary accounts on the number of the deceased the demographic consequnces of epidemics are in most cases given a more realistic image. Due to temporary closure of the roads the plaque caused most damage in economy, although it was fatal fort he people as well. With sources confirmed portion of the deceased town population during various outbreaks of the plaque exceeded one fifth. In the years 1599 and 1625 the plaque epidemic thoroughly vacated the town Novo mesto, badly affected Metlika and Krško in the years 1646–1647, and in the years 1691– 1592 Črnomelj. Not negligible were the human victims of the last large (infectiuos) epidemic in 1715. KEY WORDS Plague, Epidemics, Lower Carniola, Towns, Boroughs 42 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 Dolenjska je tista slovenska pokrajina, za katero se zdi, da so jo razne kužne epidemije zgodnjega no- vega veka obiskale največkrat in jo poleg Istre tudi najbolj prizadele. Tak vtis je v veliki meri upravičen, saj so poročila o številu umrlih in o stopnji opustelosti mestoma naravnost alarmantna, najsi gre za sodobne vire ali za poznejše interpretacije v raznih zapisih in tudi v literaturi, začenši z Valvasorjem. Razumljivo gre v virih prvo mesto mestnim in trškim naseljem, ki so v podobi te obmejne pokrajine cesarstva izstopala kot prebivalstveni konglomerati in družbeni orga- nizmi s specifičnimi, zlasti gospodarskimi funkcija- mi. Mesta in trgi so v primerjavi s podeželjem teže občutili breme epidemij, hkrati pa obstaja o njihovih posledicah tudi več pričevanj. Dolenjska mesteca, povečini miniaturna in malo pomembna, so med slovenskimi kontinentalnimi mesti, gledano v celoti, zagotovo utrpela najhujše posledice kužnih epidemij. Največje breme je nosi- lo Novo mesto, drugo najpomembnejše na Kranj- skem in edino med sedmimi dolenjskimi mesti, ki je premoglo več kot tisoč prebivalcev. V luči majh- nosti mestnih naselij Dolenjske so v virih toliko bolj presenetljive izredno visoke številke umrlih, kakršnih drugod na Kranjskem ni zaslediti. Prav verodostoj- nost in teža števila umrlih je eno temeljnih vprašanj, na katerega skušamo v pričujočem prispevku najti kolikor toliko zadovoljiv odgovor. Drugo prav tako pomembno vprašanje, tesno povezano z demograf- skimi izgubami, so gospodarske in socialne posledice epidemij. Njihove razsežnosti so še manj oprijemlji- ve, saj so praktično nemerljive z zanesljivimi kazalci, zato pri njihovem ugotavljanju le s težavo presegamo deskriptivno raven in besednjak sodobnih poročil. Pri opredelitvi problema kužnih epidemij pušča- mo ob strani sicer enega bistvenih vprašanj, za ka- kšne vrste bolezni je v konkretnih primerih pravza- prav šlo. Sodobni viri jim sicer dajejo različna imena, vendar z istim skupnim pomenom. S kugo jih je po- imenovala tudi sodobna literatura, denimo Valvasor (Pest), naletimo pa še na druge splošne označbe, kot so: laidige Contagion, laidige Infection, Sterbelauf, Se- uche itd. Pojavne oblike bolezni so bile različne, ven- dar jih je povezovala skupna značilnost, da so kužne epidemije večinoma izbruhnile nenadoma in z vso silovitostjo. Šele iz skopih navedb o simptomih ali iz zanikanj, da je šlo za »pravo kugo«, lahko mestoma sklepamo na kakšno sorodno epidemijo. Tako naj bi v Novem mestu v prvi polovici leta 1599 razsajala le »ogrska bolezen«, t. i. kuga v Krškem leta 1634 pa vzbuja pomisleke, ker je morila predvsem med otro- ško populacijo. Zaradi nerazlikovanja med različnimi epidemijami se je domala za vse vrste nalezljivih bo- lezni zgodnjega novega veka uveljavil skupni pojem – kuga. V zgodovini in ljudskem jeziku je kuga sploh vsaka nalezljiva bolezen (epidemija), ki se pojavi nenadoma na določenem mestu, traja nekaj tednov ali mesecev, povzroči hitro in množično umiranje in polagoma ugasne. Poleg prave kuge (pestis) se pod njenim imenom skriva še kakšnih deset bolezni od koz, trebušnega tifusa ali legarja do kolere in gripe.1 Epidemične razsežnosti različnih bolezni in njihovo nediferencirano označevanje nas tako silita k uporabi bolj ali manj kompromisnega poimenovanja – kužna epidemija. Pojem lahko končno upravičimo s tem, da narava posameznih epidemij ni predmet našega pre- učevanja in da iz skopih sodobnih virov zvečine sploh ni ugotovljiva. Za Dolenjsko in njene meščanske naselbine je bilo usodnih šest večjih in nekaj manjših epidemij, ponavljajočih se v nekajdesetletnih presledkih med sredo 16. in začetkom 18. stoletja. O kugah pozne- ga srednjega veka in izpričanih izbruhih epidemij drugod na Kranjskem v prvi polovici 16. stoletja ni v zvezi z Dolenjsko znanega ničesar. Poročila izpo- stavljajo kugo leta 1578, kužni val z vrhuncem leta 1599, epidemijo 1623–1627, časovno najdaljšo kugo 1645–1650, njen lokalno omejeni izbruh leta 1691– 1692 in epidemijo leta 1715. Razen pri predzadnjem kužnem valu konec 17. stoletja, ki se je na Kranjskem omejil samo na Črnomelj z bližnjo okolico, je šlo vsakokrat za epidemije širših razsežnosti, v katerih pogosto ni bila prizadeta samo Kranjska, temveč tudi sosednje dežele.2 Dolenjska je pri tem trpela v vseh velikih valovih kužnih epidemij, ki jih je doživela Kranjska, in bila kot prehodna obmejna pokrajina cesarstva neredko sploh prva na udaru črne smrti, prodirajoče izza bližnjih meja osmanskega sveta. Temeljna značilnost obravnavane problematike je pomanjkanje sodobnih, zlasti nevtralnih zapisov dogajanj, kar postavlja nelahko oviro ugotavljanju dejanskega stanja. Poseben problem je slaba ohra- njenost virov iz časa, ko so posamezne epidemije še razsajale. Več je mlajših opisov njihovih posledic, po- srednih poročil in predvsem poznejših interpretacij kot najmanj hvaležne, a prevečkrat neizogibne (edi- ne) vrste vira, ki lahko hitro predstavlja plodna tla za napačne sklepe in razlage. V pričujoči obravnavi se lotevamo precej nezavidljive naloge preverjanja s pomočjo analogij in komparacij vseh ta trenutek do- segljivih podatkov. Razpoložljive vire lahko glede na strukturo v gro- bem razdelimo na dve obdobji. Za prvo obdobje, ki sega do konca 16. stoletja, so značilna zelo redka in skopa sodobna poročila brez kvantificiranih navedb umrlih. Nekateri pojavi epidemije so znani sploh samo iz poznejših lapidarnih omemb, v pomoč pri sklepanju na potencialno število umrlih in posledično opustelost pa je moč pritegniti le ugotavljanje pose- stne (dis)kontinuitete v urbarjih in mestnih davčnih registrih. Drugo obdobje z začetkom ob zatonu 16. stoletja je nekoliko bogatejše s sumarnimi navedba- 1 Prim. Zupanič Slavec, Epidemije na Slovenskem, str. 202. 2 Prim. Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 95 sl.; Koblar, O člo- veški kugi, str. 39 sl. 43 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 mi števila umrlih. Nekoliko boljše so tudi možnosti preverjanja navedb s komparacijo nevtralnejših, po- večini posrednih poročil. Šele konec 17. stoletja se pojavi nov prvovrstni vir – mrliške matične knjige ter seznami kužnih bolnikov in umrlih, vendar gre še ve- dno za precej redke pojave. V pričujoči obravnavi dajemo prednostno mesto dvema problemoma: kronološkemu poteku dogod- kov in demografskim posledicam v posameznih me- stih in trgih Dolenjske. Ob skopih uradnih poročilih kužnih komisarjev se je za rekonstrukcijo dogajanja mogoče opreti na nadvse redke sočasne vire, tako predvsem na registraturne protokole in spise kranj- skih deželnih stanov in edinole za mesto Višnja Gora še na nekaj letnih obračunov mestnih sodnikov. Od virov poznejšega nastanka so skromnejši mestni ana- li, vsebinsko manj verodostojne so razne pritožbe in poročila mestnih predstojništev, nevtralnejše pa ko- misijske in vicedomske vizitacije mest. Kot rečeno, so za ta revnejši del Kranjske ter zla- sti za njena mestna in trška naselja značilni šokantni podatki o visokem številu umrlih, o posledično hudi ali popolni opustelosti ter gospodarskem propadanju. Iz dolenjskih mest so po zatrtju posameznih epide- mij prihajale najbolj alarmantne in mestoma že na prvi pogled komaj verjetne številke, tako denimo o več kot 800 umrlih Novomeščanih leta 1599, katerih število je po drugi, nekaj let mlajši inačici, naraslo že na več kot tisoč ljudi. Dve med seboj neodvisni po- ročili navajata za kugo leta 1625 zopet visoki številki 322 oziroma 400 novomeških žrtev, medtem ko naj bi v mestu med zadnjo kužno epidemijo leta 1715 pokopali 331 mrličev. Po manj verodostojnih naved- bah iz Metlike, nastalih štiri desetletja po dogodkih, naj bi v tem belokranjskem mestu samo v letu 1646 pomrlo 700 oseb, naslednje leto pa še 500. Večino zgornjih številk so sicer navedli mestne očetje pri- zadetih mest sami, pri čemer ni igrala nepomembne vloge časovna distanca, vendar so med navedenimi števili tudi podatki nevtralne(jše) provenience. Izpod peresa mestnih predstojništev so prihajali še drugi vznemirljivi podatki, izraženi v pavšalnih deležih mestnega življa in stopnji opustelosti, kot je dobra polovica umrlega prebivalstva Višnje Gore leta 1599 ali napol prazni Novo mesto, Metlika in Črnomelj po kugi 1623–1627. Predvsem pa v pritožbah sa- mih meščanov ne manjka zvračanja krivde na kugo kot krivca gospodarskega in demografskega pešanje mest. Bolj ko so se dogodki oddaljevali, večje so bile možnosti posploševanj in pretiravanj. Tako so deni- mo Črnomaljci pol stoletja po kugi 1691–1692 zapi- sali, da je mesto tedaj povsem izumrlo (ganz abgestor- ben) in opustelo (verwiestet).3 Nekatere od zgornjih navedb in številk so se brez ustreznega preverjanja in premisleka dodobra zasi- 3 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–5, 22. 5. 1744. drale v zgodovinski spomin, potem ko so prišle že pred več kot sto leti v historiografsko literaturo,4 se tako prenašale naprej in se vse do najnovejše dobe nekritično pojavljajo v poljudnih delih, zlasti v raznih krajevnozgodovinskih pregledih.5 Precej samovoljna povzemanja in samosvoje interpretacije tako rekoč lapidarnih objavljenih podatkov so neredko močno napihnili nič kaj dramatični ton opisov, kakršnega ponujajo originalni zapisi ali denimo Valvasor, ki je za nekatera dejstva edini vir. Demografske izgube in njihove posledice je treba presojati različno glede na časovno distanco in av- torstvo poročil. V virih je namreč srečati veliko na- pihnjene retorike in klišejev, značilnih za duh dobe. Šokantni podatki o umiranju mestnega prebivalstva in opustelosti so značilni tako za poročila mestnih predstojništev, nastala nekaj let po kugi, kakor za nji- hove pol stoletja mlajše navedbe ali za nevtralnejša poročila deželnih oblastnih organov. Iz sloga poro- čanja je tako zelo težko izluščiti dejansko stanje, še zlasti če manjka opore v drugih sodobnih virih. Pro- blematične so predvsem ponavljajoče se, za dobo kot tako značilne navedbe o stopnji opustelosti mestnih naselij in o deležu umrlih prebivalcev: npr. četrtina opustelega mesta, tretjina, več kot tretjina, polovica ali več kot polovica pustot oziroma umrlih. Bolj kot so numerični podatki precizni, večjo pozornost pri- tegnejo, najsi gre za letnice, denarne vsote ali dru- ge številčne navedbe (hiše, prebivalci, pustote ipd.). Tovrstni podatki bi lahko po logiki stvari temeljili na bolj ali manj natančnem preverjanju, če že ne na (neohranjenih) specifikacijah, pri čemer zanje jam- či edinole avtor s svojo kredibilnostjo. Tako podane številke o umrlih kužnih bolnikih naj bi bile tudi tem bolj verjetne, če so zapisane neposredno po dogodkih ali z ne več kot nekajletno časovno distanco. Številčni podatki predstavljajo še drug problem. Že tako maloštevilne sumarne podatke o umrlih je namreč le redko mogoče umestiti v posestno in de- mografsko stanje določenega mesta, niti v enem pri- meru pa nista na voljo dve primerljivi specifikaciji: umrlih oseb in vseh hišnih gospodarjev v času pred kugo. Za presojanje posledic umiranja je poleg tega bistvenega pomena struktura umrlih oseb. Kuge, ki je prizadela gospodarsko vitalni del prebivalstva ali populacijo v prokreativni starosti, v tem pogledu ni- kakor ni moč primerjati z epidemijo, katere žrtve so bili predvsem otroci ali povečini mestna revščina. Poleg tega se demografske posledice v virih vse- lej navezujejo na druge, zlasti na gospodarske, kar je 4 Podatek o 800 umrlih Novomeščanih je po arhivskem viru priobčil Ivan Vrhovec (Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, str. 79). 1200 umrlih za kugo v Metliki navaja po pismu vice- domu iz leta 1686 že August Dimitz (Geschichte Krains, str. 61–62), po njem ali neposredno iz vira pa Leopold Podlogar, Požari v Metliki, str. 46. 5 Dular, Metlika skozi stoletja (1978), str. 11; Dular, Metlika sko- zi stoletja (1986), str. 13; Jarc, Iz preteklih stoletij, str. 44. 44 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 več kot razumljivo, saj so bile posledice kužnih epi- demij na gospodarskem področju dostikrat hujše in dolgotrajnejše. Pojavu epidemije na določenem kraju je sledila izolacija (bandiziranje) okuženega območja, kar je pomenilo pretrganje komunikacij in ustavitev trgovsko-prometnih tokov. Kužne straže, ki so jih v drugih krajih postavile deželne ter posamezne lokal- ne oblasti, namreč ljudem in blagu niso dovoljeva- le prehoda brez zdravstvenih spričeval, imenovanih »fede«. Izbruh še tako lokalno omejene epidemije je praviloma povzročil zaprtje deželnih meja in posle- dično močno omejitev oziroma popolno ustavitev prometa, zaradi česar je tako ali drugače trpelo ce- lotno deželno gospodarstvo. Zlasti dolgotrajne za- pore so lahko za seboj potegnile hude izgube raznih gospodarskih dejavnosti, obubožanje določenih slo- jev, davčno nesolventnost, ki jo je v končni posledici občutila deželna blagajna, pomanjkanje življenjskih potrebščin in drugih artiklov ter končno prave lakote. V nadaljevanju predstavljamo posledice kužnih epidemij po kronološkem redu. Temeljna dejstva so namreč prepogosto premalo znana, da bi se lahko teme lotili samo problemsko. Metode dela in speci- fika pritegnjenih virov nas poleg tega silijo v daljše ekskurze in mestoma tudi v odmik od osrednjega problema. Manjše kužne epidemije do konca 16. stoletja Kakšne razsežnosti so imele epidemije na Do- lenjskem pred sredo 16. stoletja, je mogoče samo ugibati in bo ostalo neznanka, če se nenadejano ne odkrijejo novi viri. Na Primorskem in Kranjskem je prva kuga zgodnjega novega veka kosila zlasti v letih 1511–1512, vendar razen za Trst ni znanih oprijem- ljivih podatkov. Po V. Travnerju naj bi na Kranjskem veliko ljudi umrlo v Beli krajini, pri čemer pa se je lahko oprl zgolj na podatek L. Podlogarja, da so v črnomaljski mestni lozi po letu 1510 postavili kape- lico sv. Sebastijana.6 Samo na ravni domneve ostaja tudi morebitno divjanje epidemije v Novem mestu, ki je po prvem ohranjenem popisu hiš leta 1515 med skupaj 272 oštati izkazovalo 24 ali skoraj desetino opustelih, deloma že povsem propadlih domov.7 Po- selitveno stanje v največjem dolenjskem mestu, za- beleženo v fiskalno-vojaške namene, je pomenljivo v luči enakega popisa za mesto Kamnik, nastalega leto pozneje, v katerem v celoti pogrešamo kakršne koli pustote.8 Njihova odsotnost sicer še ne pomeni, da jih v resnici ni bilo, kakor tudi v Novem mestu ni 6 Prim. Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 95. Prim. Podlogar, Kronika mesta Črnomlja, str. 64. 7 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 105, fasc. 59, lit. R V–1, Der zaichnus abschrifft der hoffstett der statt Rue- dolphswerth anno 1515. 8 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 108, fasc. 61, lit. S XVII–1, fol. 157v–160v. Objava: Luschin v. Ebengreuth, Ein Protokoll der Stadt Stein, str. 38–67. nikakršnega indica za posledice morebitne nedavne epidemije. Razlogov za gospodarsko pešanje in po- sledično praznjenje tega obmejnega mesta namreč ni manjkalo tudi brez posega črne smrti. V virih je našla odmev šele kuga, ki je v petdesetih letih 16. stoletja kosila na več koncih Kranjske. Epi- demijo so leta 1553 zanesli na Kranjsko s Hrvaškega, iz žarišč v Zagrebu in Samoboru. Kljub prepovedi stikov z okuženimi kraji se je bolezen naslednje leto razširila po vsej Kranjski, tako da so morali ustaviti trgovino in zapreti vse ceste proti Italiji.9 Na Dolenj- skem je bolezen terjala edino dokumentirano žrtev v Višnji Gori. Prvovrstni nevtralni vir za spremljanje dogajanja, kakršnih bi si želeli čim več, predstavljajo trije zaporedni letni obračuni višnjegorskih mestnih sodnikov v letih 1552–1555, brez katerih ne bi imeli prav nobenega indica, da se je epidemija pojavila tudi v spodnjem dela dežele. Že zaradi narave dragoce- nega vira si kaže dogajanje v Višnji Gori predočiti v vseh podrobnostih. Vesti o kugi so Višnjane prvič vznemirile 6. av- gusta 1553, ko so deželnemu slu poleg obvezne pogostitve plačali »zaradi epidemije« še dodatnih 6 pfenigov. Slu je pripadla povečana pristojbina, saj se je izpostavljal nevarnosti, ko je krožil po mestih in gospostvih. Višnjani so se tedaj počutili še dovolj varne, saj so prav tiste dni živahno popravljali cesto in za te potrebe lomili kamen v mestnem kamnolo- mu. Pet dni zatem, 11. avgusta 1553, je deželni sel prinesel v zvezi s kugo nek ukaz, 6. septembra pa tudi že generalni mandat. Ker so deželne oblasti medtem zaradi epidemije ukazale zapreti ceste, je mestni so- dnik Vincenc Steirer utrpel precejšnjo izgubo kot zakupnik mestne mitnice. Že 5. septembra je pri me- stnem svetu izposloval zmanjšanje zakupnine s 136 na 100 goldinarjev, čeprav nevarnost še ni bila prete- ča. Tako je nekaj dni pozneje kot vsako leto potekal čebulov sejem, medtem pa so Višnjani nadaljevali s popravljanjem ceste. Nova, očitno strožja mandata o epidemiji, je deželni sel prinesel iz Ljubljane 25. septembra in 13. oktobra, nakar je mestni svet skle- nil postaviti vsako nedeljo na oboje mestnih vrat po enega nadzornika za preprečitev vstopa prišlekom iz okuženih krajev. Dan pred božičem govori sodnikov letni račun izrecno o okuženih vaseh, nato pa vsebuje postavke o plačilih nadzornikoma. Do 7. januarja na- slednjega leta (1554) sta stražarja pri mestnih vratih za vsako nedeljo prejela vsak po 4 krajcarje. Pri tem ni šlo za pravo zaporo, temveč za preventivni ukrep, saj v Višnji Gori kuge ni bilo. Za nevaren dan so šteli samo nedeljo, ko so v mesto v večjem številu prihajali okoličani in tujci. Po 23. februarju 1553 je deželni sel spet prinesel mandat o kugi, nedolgo zatem pa je pi- sánje v zvezi z epidemijo nesel župniku v Šentvid pri Stični tudi mestni sel. Spomladi se nevarnost ni po- 9 Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, str. 98. Prim. Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 96. 45 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 večala in tudi ne povsem prenehala. Deželni sli so še večkrat prinesli razne ukaze in generale, med drugim skupaj z generalom o davčnem zaostanku tudi neko nedatirano prepoved v zvezi s kugo. Povsem svobo- dno sta kmalu zatem jezdila v Ljubljano sodnik Vin- cenc Steirer in njegov spremljevalec, brez posebnosti sta 22. maja minila telovska procesija in letni sejem. Potem ko od treh kraljev do začetka poletja 1554 ni poročil o »kužnih nadzornikih« na mestnih vratih, so ju začenši s 1. julijem spet postavljali vsako nedeljo. 25. julija je kuga izbruhnila tudi v Višnji Gori, in sicer v hiši Hansa Šelutija, ki je sam zbolel in umrl. Z njegovo smrtjo se zdi povezano dejstvo, da sta me- ščana, ki sta nesla pobrani davek v Ljubljano, tam is- kala ranocelnika. Mestni svet je takoj nato zaposlil tri moške grobarje in neko staro grobarko, ki so poko- pali umrlega Šelutija, nato pa je bila njihova naloga počakati še na smrt drugih in jih pokopati. Grobar- jem so obljubili za plačilo po eno krono in ženski renski goldinar, kar je po obračunu čez mesec dni naneslo 5 goldinarjev in 36 krajcarjev. Pet dni po izbruhu kuge v mestu, dne 30. julija, je mestni svet ponovno postavil pri spodnjih in zgornjih mestnih vratih po enega nadzornika za preprečevanje vstopa ljudi iz okuženih krajev. Tokrat je šlo očitno za stalno in ne samo za nedeljsko stražo, saj je znašalo teden- sko plačilo 15 krajcarjev, straž pa niso umaknili vse do julija 1555. Kot vse kaže, se kuga po Šelutijevi smrti ni razmahnila in je bržkone zahtevala samo smrt omenjenega moža. Že avgusta so namreč Viš- njani pospešeno popravljali cesto in lomili kamen v mestni okolici, imeli septembra kot ponavadi čebulov sejem, živahno trgovali in hodili po razne potrebšči- ne v Ljubljano.10 Drugod po Dolenjskem, kot rečeno, ni o tej kugi znanega ničesar. Vse kaže, da se ni dotaknila Novega mesta, saj je Novomeščani v nasprotnem zagotovo ne bi pozabili omeniti v svojem izčrpnem poročilu vladarju leta 1564, kjer govorijo o tegobah mesta in vzrokih zanje.11 Na Dolenjskem se je kuga sicer po- javila tudi omenjenega leta 1564, ko se je z Goriškega razširila na Kranjsko, razsajala zlasti v Ljubljani in od tam pregnala deželne stanove v Kamnik. Po dolenj- skih krajih naj bi veliko ljudi pobrala v Šmarju in pri Šentrupertu.12 Oglasila se je spet čez pičlih dvanajst let, ko je leta 1576 s Štajerskega prekoračila mejo pri Ra- dečah ob Savi in nato razsajala po Gorenjskem in Primorskem.13 Stanovski registraturni protokoli go- vorijo meseca novembra o kugi v Radečah, na bliž- njem Kumu in v Zagorju, naslednje leto (1577) pa 10 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, mestni računi 1552/1553, 1553/1554 in 1554/1555. 11 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–1, 25. 4. 1564. 12 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 96; Koblar, O človeški kugi, str 50. 13 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 97. je črna smrt razsajala že širše na Kranjskem. Posebej je omenjena Ljubljana z okolico, medtem ko so se na Dolenjskem ta čas upirali generalu o kugi kme- tje okoli Šentruperta. Župnik v Trebnjem je moral decembra »v času infekcije« prenehati pokopavati na Šentjurjevi Gori in prenesti pogrebe k drugi bližnji podružnični cerkvi.14 To kugo omenja Valvasor samo pri opisu trga Radeče, za katerega pravi, da ga je Bog s kužno bo- leznijo tedaj dokaj hudo opustošil.15 Kako hudo naj bi nadenj zlil svoj srd, lahko sklepamo le s pomočjo kaj negotove metode komparacije posestniških pri- imkov. Pomenljiva je primerjava imen radeških tr- žanov v deželnoknežjem urbarju iz leta 157616 in v šest let mlajšem seznamu oborožitve iz leta 1582.17 Urbar pozna v trgu 34 različnih posestnikov in v delu trga, imenovanem Krakovo, še 35, skupno 69 oseb, seznam oborožencev trga Radeče pa jih ima samo 52. Manjše število kot v urbarju ne preseneča, saj za boj sposobnega moža ni premogla vsaka hiša, zato s tem sploh ni rečeno, da bi se število naseljenih hiš skrčilo za 17 ali skoraj za četrtino. Zgovornejši je podatek, da se je v teh šestih letih obdržalo samo 26 priim- kov, od tega 18 istih gospodarjev kot leta 1576, kar predstavlja leta 1582 le 50 % istih družin kot šest let poprej. Četudi gre za zelo različno zasnovo popisov, pri prvem za posestnike, pri drugem pa za oboroži- tev trških mož, je diskontinuiteta Radečanov očitna. Kuga bi v skrajnem primeru lahko povsem ali delno izpraznila 43 hiš ali tri petine od 69, upoštevaje raz- lično zasnovo popisov pa še vedno okoli polovico do- mov. Posestne spremembe nikakor ne bi mogle biti tolikšne v samo šestih letih brez krutega zunanjega posega. Nastale spremembe so bile namreč številčno enake v šestih letih od 1576 in 1582 ter v dvajsetih letih med letom 1582 in naslednjim radeškim urbar- jem iz leta 1602.18 V trgu se je v teh dvajsetih letih obdržalo 21 gospodarjev in 5 priimkov ali natanko polovica družin iz seznama leta 1582. Skupno se je število radeških posestnikov v četrt stoletja od 1576 do 1602 znižalo z 69 na 65, ohranilo pa se je 12 istih gospodarjev in 11 priimkov, skupaj okoli tretjina pri- imkov iz leta 1576.19 Za primerjavo dinamike posestnih sprememb v drugi polovici 16. stoletja imamo na voljo več drugih primerov. Nazorna primera sočasne močne kontinui- 14 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 854, registra- turni protokoli št. 6 (1567–1577), pag. 391, 403, 409, 409, 427 in 430. 15 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 464. 16 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 107, fasc. 60, lit. S X–1, urbar gospostva Žebnik ali Radeče 1576, s. p. 17 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 424, fasc. 289, str 863–878. 18 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 107, fasc. 60, lit. S XI–2, urbar gospostva Radeče 1602, s. p. 19 Od slednjih ne najdemo v oborožitvenem seznamu iz leta 1582 treh gospodarjev in štirih priimkov, kar potrjuje njegovo nepopolnost glede na celoto posestnikov. 46 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 tete posestniških priimkov sta trga Litija in Ribnica. Dvanajstletni časovni razmik med urbarjema iz let 1566 in 1578 je v Litiji prinesel po zmanjšanje pose- stnikov z 19 na 18, izginotje samo treh priimkov, po- jav dveh novih ter ohranitev kar 15 istih gospodarjev ali 83,3 %.20 Leta 1619 je bilo v Litiji še vedno 18 gospodarjev, od tega 3 isti in 7 istih priimkov kot leta 1578, kar predstavlja za štiridesetleten časovni odmik visokih 55 % nespremenjenih priimkov.21 Nekoliko manjšo kontinuiteto beležita ribniška gospoščinska urbarja iz let 1564 in 1573 za trg Ribnico. Število gospodarjev se je v devetih letih povzpelo s 33 na 35 oziroma na 40, če upoštevamo, da sta bila na neka- terih posestnih enotah dva ali več gospodarjev. Od oseb iz leta 1564 se jih je do leta 1573 obdržalo 14 (42,4 %), priimkov 10 (30,3 %), izginilo pa je 9 starih družin (27,3 %). V trgu se je medtem sicer naselilo še 10 novih gospodarjev in delnih gospodarjev, toda ohranilo se je skoraj tri četrtine starih družin.22 Raz- lika med navedenima dvema trškima naselja na eni strani in trgom Radeče, kjer je v samo šestih letih izginilo do polovico družin, je torej več kot očitna. Kuga pa leta 1576 ni prizadela samo Radeč, tem- več po pričevanju sodobnih virov tudi njegovo oko- lico na območju Kuma. Urbarja radeškega gospostva za leti 1576 in 1602 dajeta v 18 vaseh radeške bližnje okolice in sosednjega Kumljanskega naslednjo podo- bo. Število gospodarjev se je le malo povečalo, s 135 na 138, istih oseb ali vsaj soimenjakov je ostalo 14 (10,7 %) ter 62 priimkov (47,3 %), medtem ko se je na starih posestnih enotah pojavilo 55 novih priim- kov (42 %), od tega veliko razširjenih na tem podro- čju že v času starejšega urbarja. Največjo diskontinui- teto družinskih imen beležita urbarja v trgu Radeče in dveh najbližjih vaseh Spodnje Radeče in Njivice. Hitro menjavanje posestnikov glede na kraje v hribo- vitem svetu je v teh treh ravninskih krajih nedvomno pospeševalo več dejavnikov, vendar pritegnitev obo- rožitvenega seznama Radečanov iz leta 1582 jasno pokaže čas intenzivnih sprememb, ki sovpada s kugo. Od 64 trških priimkov leta 1602 jih je bilo leta 1576 znanih le 23 (35,9 %), kar je glede na 69 posestnikov v starejšem urbarju natanko tretjina. Enak delež pri- imkov (6 od 18) je ostal nespremenjen v Spodnjih Radečah, v Njivicah pa je od 9 posestnih enot do leta 1602 ena izginila, na šestih se je priimek zamenjal in obdržal le na dveh (22,2 %). Drugo področje znatne zamenjave priimkov predstavljajo vasi pod Kumom, kjer se kuga prav tako omenja novembra 1576. Tam 20 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 124, fasc. 70a, lit. W XXIII–3, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1566, s. p. – SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 205, No. 35, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1578, s. p. 21 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 205, No. 36, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1619, s. p. 22 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 105, fasc. 59, lit. R I–5, davčni register Ribnica 1564, s. p. – SI AS, AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica, knj. 1, urbar gospostva Ribnica 1573, s. p. je pred letom 1602 več kot polovica domačij zame- njala priimek v Završah (3 od 5), Brišah (5 od 7) in Spodnjem Jelovem (3 od 4) ter nekaj manj raztre- sene kmetije Podkraja (5 od 10), Kuma (3 od 7) in Spodnjih Vod (3 od 7). Glede na siceršnjo ustalje- nost hišnih imen samotnih kmetij so spremembe v omenjenih kumljanskih vaseh dovolj opazne. 67 posestnih enot v dveh ravninskih in šestih hribo- vskih krajih je tako v 26 letih zamenjalo 41 priimkov (61,1 %), ohranilo pa se jih je le 26 (38,9 %), od tega 4 isti gospodarji. V ostalih desetih vaseh radeškega gospostva je bila kontinuiteta posestnikov nasprotno neprimerno večja, saj se je na 68 posestnih enotah obdržalo kar 50 priimkov (73,5 %), od tega 10 istih gospodarjev.23 Za skoraj obrnjeno razmerje kontinui- tete in diskontinuitete na obeh polovicah kmečkih posesti je moral biti slejkoprej kriv nenaden zunanji poseg – v zelo veliki meri bržčas prav kuga leta 1576. Podrobnemu dogajanju lahko v času te kuge sle- dimo edinole v Višnji Gori, in sicer po letnem ra- čunu sodnika Marka Raaba za leto 1576/77. Življe- nje je teklo skoraj normalno, le da je bilo na letnem sejmu na dan Gospodovega vnebovzetja leta 1577 manj trgovanja in dobička zaradi kuge in sočasnih sejmov v drugih krajih. Ukaz o varnostnih ukrepih zaradi kuge na Beneškem je prispel v mesto že 22. julija 1576, po en general in ukaz pa malo pred in kmalu po vseh svetih. Za nekega mojstra pravi račun, da je maja ali junija 1577 tesaril pred mestom v času epidemije (in Sterbleuff).24 Iz naslednjega leta 1578, ki velja na Kranjskem za »leto kuge«, višnjegorski sodniški račun žal ni ohranjen, diskontinuiteta pri- imkov hišnih gospodarjev pa od enega do drugega davčnega registra, med 1567 in 1581, ne kaže po- večanj, ki bi jih lahko pripisali epidemiji.25 O kugi v Višnji Gori prav tako ne poročajo niti Valvasor niti sodobni viri. Marsikje na Kranjskem je kuga razsajala dve leti pozneje, leta 1578. Njen kronološki potek je z viri slabo dokumentiran. V stanovskih registraturnih protokolih so prve odredbe posameznim gospostvom na Notranjskem zabeležene konec septembra 1578, julija naslednje leto je izšel general o prepovedi sej- mov, zbiranja ljudi in izogibanju okuženim krajem, avgusta 1578 pa so imeli deželni stanovi namen pre- seliti svoje urade v Škofjo Loko, ker kuga v Ljubljani ni hotela prenehati. Oktobra so tajnemu dvornemu svetu v Gradcu resnično poročali o preselitvi, toda ne v Škofjo Loko, ki ni bila več dovolj varna, temveč naprej v Kranj. Kužni val se je očitno končal pred januarjem 1580, osamljen primer kuge pa je zabele- 23 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 107, fasc. 60, lit. S XI–1, urbar gospostva Radeče 1576, s. p.; XI–2, urbar gospo- stva Radeče 1602, s. p. 24 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, mestni računi: 1576/1577. 25 Prav tam, fasc. II, davčna registra 1567 in 1581. 47 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 žen le še junija istega leta v Moravški dolini.26 Razen redkih omemb krajev na Notranjskem in Gorenj- skem ni nikakršnih vesti o epidemiji na Dolenjskem. Skopo poročajo o njej le mlajša poročila, med njimi v prvi vrsti Valvasor. Tako je kuga po Valvasorju leta 1578 prišla v mesto Krško in prenekaterega spravila na oni svet, v Novem mestu jo omenja skupaj s kugo 1590, pri Kočevju pa pravi, da je pobrala veliko ljudi v deželici in mestu.27 Mlajša literatura jo nato omenja v Ljubljani in Cerknici ter na Dolenjskem v dolini Temenice, pri Šentrupertu, v Krškem, Novem mestu in na Kočevskem.28 Epidemija je bila še posebno huda nadloga za Novo mesto, ki je samo dve leti prej, leta 1576, po- gorelo, o sami kugi pa razen Valvasorjeve omembe ne vemo prav ničesar. Enako velja za Krško, kjer pa primerjava posestnikov po krškem deželnoknež- jem urbarju iz leta 1575 in po seznamu oborožitve podložnikov v kužnem letu 1578 omogoča določena sklepanja na posledice epidemije med tamkajšnjim kmečkim življem. Pri tem predstavlja težavo dejstvo, da mlajši seznam ni točneje datiran, zato ne vemo, ali je nastal po kugi ali že pred njo. V celotnem gospo- stvu Krško se je priimek v samo treh letih 1575–1578 spremenil na 20,1 % kmečkih posesti, medtem ko jih je 3,9 % opustelo. V »hribovskem uradu« vzdolž Save se je nov priimek pojavil na 12,7 % kmetij, na Krškem polju pa kar pri 26,8 % posestnih enotah. V ravnini je opustelo tudi skoraj dvakrat toliko kmetij (4,8 %) kot v hribih (2,8 %). Spremembe se očitne še zlasti v primerjavi s spremembami v petletnem obdobju med 1570 in 1575, v katerem je prišlo do kmečkega upora 1573 in hudega maščevanja nad kmeti. V teh petih letih se je – nedvomno v veliki meri zaradi upora – priimek gospodarja zamenjal na približno enakem delež kmetij tako v obeh urbarskih uradih kot v ce- lotnem gospostvu (med 16 in 17 %), opustelo pa je okoli 5 % posesti. Primerjave z dinamiko posestnih sprememb v drugih časovnih obdobjih kažejo, da se je v sedemdesetih letih 16. stoletja na tleh krškega gospostva dogajalo marsikaj hudega. Čas med 1575 in 1578 pri tem izstopa celo pred časom kmečkega upora in dopušča ugotovitev, da je za posestne spre- membe v veliki meri kriva prav kuga.29 Kranjska je nato doživljala kugo tudi v osemdese- tih in devetdesetih letih 16. stoletja, ko je epidemija pobrala zlasti veliko prebivalcev Škofje Loke (1580 in 26 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 860, regi- straturni protokoli št. 7 (1578–1584), pag. 91, 96, 101, 121 in 146. 27 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str 242, 488, 199. 28 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 97 citira Valvasorja (Valva- sor, Die Ehre XI, str. 199 in 717). 29 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 81, fasc. 46, lit. G VIII–4, urbar gospostva Krško 1570, s. p. – SI AS 174, Tere- zijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 141, No. 29, urbar gospostva Krško 1575, pag. 481–529. – SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 81, fasc. 46, lit. G VIII–1, seznam oborožitve 1578. 1582) in Ljubljane (1586–87), najhuje pa se je zavr- tela v mrtvaškem plesu na predvečer novega stoletja.30 Kuga leta 1599 V iztekajoče se 16. stoletju je Kranjsko prizadela dotlej najhujša epidemija, ki je podobno kot prejšnje še vedno slabo dokumentirana. Registraturni proto- koli deželnih stanov so v teh letih po vsebini še zelo lapidarni, tako da ne podajajo skoraj nič več kot le navedbe o odredbah splošne vsebine in o dopisova- nju s stanovi sosednjih dežel. Med julijem 1598, ko so kuga prvič omenja, in novembrom leta 1600, ko gre za njene zapoznele odmeve, je protokoli v zvezi z dolenjskimi kraji ne navajajo niti enkrat. Krajevno jo postavljajo samo v Ljubljano in deželo Kranjsko kot tako.31 Gledano v celoti je skopa tudi korespon- denca stanovskega poverjeniškega urada, ki pa ravno za kugo na Dolenjskem ponuja boljši pregled kot za druge dele dežele. V deželi se je epidemija pojavila spomladi 1599, in sicer najprej na Dolenjskem, potem ko je že prej razsajala na Reki in v tamkajšnji okolici.32 Deželni vicedom in stanovi so 1. maja poslali na Dolenjsko dva kužna komisarja iz vrst ljubljanskih mestnih svétnikov, ki naj bi opravila temeljito poizvedbo o stanju. Nedatirano komisijsko poročilo, nastalo go- tovo še v istem mesecu, navaja pojave kuge okoli Šmarja, Šentjanža, Šentruperta, Radeč in Rake, na- dalje v gospostvu Spodnji Mokronog in okoli Krške- ga, kjer naj ne bi bilo neokužene vasi. Novo mesto in njegova okolica pritegneta toliko večjo pozornost zaradi mlajšega poročila iz leta 1606, ki govori o dra- stično visoki umrljivosti – več kot 800 umrlih me- stnih prebivalcev. Kužni komisarji so namreč maja 1599 dobili od mestnega predstojništva zagotovilo, da je v Novem mestu dotlej umrlo le šest oseb in še te po zatrjevanju zdravnika, lekarnarja in padarja za t. i. »ogrsko boleznijo« in ne zaradi kuge. Naspro- tno naj bi v bližnjih župnijah Šmarjeta in Št. Peter po besedah tamkajšnjega župnika v kratkem času pomrlo okoli 300 ljudi, o množičnem umiranju pa je bilo slišati tudi z območja Trške Gore in Bajno- fa severno od Novega mesta. Kot pravi poročilo, je kuga dotlej prizanesla Višnji Gori, Stični, Trebnjemu in Veliki Loki.33 Junija istega leta je epidemija zajela Ljubljano in se postopoma širila proti Gorenjski.34 30 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 98–100. – Koblar, O člove- ški kugi, str. 50–51. 31 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 444, fasc. 291 d, pag. 739–744, 1. 5. 1599, ad 1. 5. 1599. – Prim. Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, str. 98. 32 Prim. Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, str. 98. 33 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 444, fasc. 291 d, pag. 739–744, 1. 5. 1599, ad 1. 5. 1599. – Prim. Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, str. 98. 34 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 857, registra- turni protokoli št. 11 (1598–1601), pag. 11, 20, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 49, 67 in 84. 48 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 Tako je v Ljubljani izbruhnila prav v hišah obeh kuž- nih komisarjev, ki sta se vrnila z Dolenjskega, kjer sta se domnevno okužila. Deželne urade so nato brez odlašanja prenesli iz glavnega mesta v Kamnik, kljub varnostnim ukrepom pa se je obolelost širila proti se- veru in se do konca leta samo še stopnjevala.35 Iz časa epidemije v deželnem glavnem mestu ob- stajajo sodobna izčrpna poročila, zato precej dobro poznamo kronologijo bolezni, varnostne ukrepe in razne podrobnosti. Neprimerno slabše je dokumen- tirano dogajanje na Dolenjskem, od koder imamo poročila o visoki umrljivosti v treh mestih: Novem mestu, Višnji Gori in Kočevju. Novomeščani so ne- kaj let pozneje navedli celo precej natančni števili umrlih oseb in hišnih gospodarjev, ki že zato pri- tegneta vso pozornost. Nekritično, brez upoštevanja sodobnih referenčnih virov, ju je nato prevzela sta- rejša historiografija, tako da se od izida Vrhovčeve Zgodovine Novega mesta (1891) vztrajno ponavlja tr- ditev o več kot 800 umrlih prebivalcih leta 1599, od katerih naj bi bilo 149 hišnih gospodarjev.36 Številki so Novomeščani leta 1606 posredovali v spremnem poročilu vicedomski komisiji, tik preden je ta pri- šla na ogled obubožanega, izpraznjenega in deloma pogorelega mesta.37 Toda dvom o verodostojnosti zgornjih številk se samo še poveča ob podatku o 1000 umrlih, ki so ga vnesli v prošnjo za pomoč le nekaj let pozneje, leta 1615.38 S časovno distanco se je zmanjševala kritičnost prizadetih do polpretek- lih dogodkov, k nastanku trditve o 800 in končno o magičnih tisoč umrlih pa je pripomoglo tudi pre- pričanje, da so se predstave o resničnem dogajanju v Novem mestu leta 1599 medtem v očeh deželnih oblasti že zameglile. Veliko manj določen je podatek o umrlih v Višnji Gori, zapisan desetletje po epidemiji. Leta 1609 je nadvojvoda Ferdinand od višenjskega mestnega sod- nika, sveta in občine prejel prošnjo za davčni spregled in komisijski ogled mesta. Višnjani so v njej navajali, da je kuga v letu 1599 pobrala kar polovico mešča- nov in gostačev ter pustila za seboj ne le opuščene in nenaseljene hiše, temveč naj bi zaostanek osebnega davka zaradi množičnega umiranja meščanov samo v letu 1599 narastel na 152 goldinarjev. Pri tem ni moč prezreti, kje je pravzaprav poudarek njihove- ga pisánja. Davčno nesolventnost so v nadaljevanju utemeljevali z dejstvom, da so laški vojaki, gredoč na Kanižo (1601), požigali in uničevali hiše in kašče ter s hudim razgrajanjem povzročili znatno oslabitev mesta na številu meščanov, hiš in obrti.39 Kuga zelo podobno kot v nekaj starejšem novomeškem poročilu 35 Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, str. 98. 36 Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, str. 79. 37 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, 24. 9. 1606. 38 Prav tam, 2. 7. 1615. 39 StLA, Innerösterreichische Hofkammer-Akten (odslej I.Ö. HK–Akten) 1611–III–105. nenadoma sploh ni več poglavitni vir zla, čeprav naj bi pomorila polovico ljudi! Niti tolikšna morija sama po sebi ni zadoščala za spodkop temeljev mesta, am- pak je bilo nujno treba navesti še druge razloge, ki bi prikrili očitno pretiravanje. Poleg Novomeščanov in Višnjanov so se na kugo sklicevali tudi Kočevci, in sicer kot prvi že v začetku leta 1601, ko so na graško dvorno komoro naslovili prošnjo za pomoč. Njihove navedbe poznamo le iz povzetka, po katerem naj bi kuga (Infection) v ko- čevskem mestecu morila dve leti. Umrlo naj bi ve- liko najuglednejših meščanov in gostačev, Kočevje pa utrpelo znaten upad prebivalstva. Toda epidemija ni mogla biti posebno huda, saj se tudi tu omenja le mimogrede v podkrepitev prošnje za nekajletni odpis davka zaradi požara leta 1596.40 Kočevci so se v po- manjkanju krepkih dejstev zatekli k pavšalni trditvi o smrti najuglednejših ljudi in zmanjšanju mestne po- pulacije. Prevedeno iz pisarniškega jezika pomenijo te navedbe gotovo samo blažjo žetev črne smrti, manjšo kot v drugih dveh mestih. Pri tem je treba upoštevati tudi krajšo časovno distanco, ki je pisce prošnje loče- vala od dogodkov in s tem brzdala njihovo željo po pretiravanju. Kočevski primer je hkrati zelo zgovoren dokaz, kako hitro je bilo dejstva mogoče sprevrača- ti in potvarjati. Neposredno po ugasnitvi epidemije, aprila 1600, so namreč Kočevci v prošnji stanovom za odlog plačila davka navajali samo, da jih je Bog udaril s šibo kužne bolezni (vns armen mit einer ruetten der straff, der infection heimbgesucht), zaradi česar je bilo mesto zaprto, prepoved gibanja pa je prebivalce pah- nila v hudo revščino in stisko.41 Razen gospodarskih torej sploh ni zaznati kakšnih demografskih posle- dic, o katerih so Kočevci leto dni pozneje veliko bolj smelo pisali v oddaljeni Gradec. Kdo je v prvem desetletju 17. stoletja pri opiso- vanju posledic kuge koga posnemal in ali je to sploh počel, niti ni pomembno. Na kugo so se izgovarja- la vsa mesta, katerih poročila iz tega časa so se nam ohranila. Epidemija tako zanesljivo ni bila zgolj ne- dolžna klica, temveč nadloga, ki se je globoko zasi- drala v kolektivnem spominu. Iz nje se je postopoma rodilo prepričanje, da se je resnično zlo začelo prav z izbruhom kuge, če že ni bolezen sama povzroči- la vsega gorja in posledično gospodarskega pešanja. Dejansko je kuga leta 1599 padla v čas hudih politič- no-gospodarskih pretresov, ki so še posebej prizadeli Dolenjsko kot obmejno pokrajino v soseščini bojišč t. i. dolge vojne (1593–1606). Poznejše razlage me- stnih predstojništev, kdaj in zakaj se je končala »zlata doba«, so se največkrat ustavljale prav ob dogodkih 40 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 274, fasc. 139, lit. G I–8, 16. 6. 1601. – Prošnjo povzema v poročilu dvor- ni komori tudi upravitelj vicedomskega urada Filip Kobenzl (StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1601–VII–40, 16. 6. 1601. 41 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 446, fasc. 291 d, pag. 513, 9. 4. 1600. 49 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 tega časa: tako naj bi na znaten upad tranzitne trgo- vine vplival zlasti padec Bihaća in Kaniže.42 Če se vrnemo k vprašanju, kaj se je leta 1599 re- snično dogajalo v treh nesporno okuženih dolenjskih mestih, je treba poudariti, da se tako pri Valvasorju kot v sodobnih virih – predvsem v registraturnih protokolih deželnih stanov in spisih stanovskih de- želnih zadev – pojavlja v zvezi s kugo samo Novo mesto, medtem ko Višnjo Goro in Kočevje v celoti pogrešamo. Še več, Valvasor, ki pri opisu preteklosti Višnje Gore ne omenja nobene konkretne nesreče,43 govori pri Kočevju o kužni moriji v mestu in ko- čevski deželici leta 1578, niti besede pa ne nameni kugi leta 1599, čeprav se ustavi pri požaru tri leta prej.44 Če pazljivo preberemo njegove vrstice o dveh kugah v Novem mestu, tudi ni zaznati kakšne raz- like med epidemijo leta 1578 in ono v letu 1599, ki jo pomotoma postavlja v leto 1590:45 »Massen sie /Pest=Seuche/ im 1578 Jahr/ und gleichfalls /!/ im 1590/ viel Leute weggerissen/ und so wenig derselben übrig gelassen/ daß das Graß/ auf dem Marckt=Platz/ so hoch gewachsen/ daß man es mit Sensen abmähen können.«46 Povedano ima ob dramatičnem tonu poročanja neko notranjo logiko. Trava na novome- škem Glavnem trgu ni nujno posledica drastičnega zmanjšanja prebivalstva, temveč predvsem dejstva, da tržni prostor cele tedne in mesece ni bil obiskan zaradi kužnih zapor mesta in prometnic. Netlako- vani trg, kjer se je sicer dvakrat na teden odvijala ži- 42 Npr. SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, s. d. Bericht A (zadnja omenjena letnica 1651). 43 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 628–629. 44 Prav tam, str. 199, 200. 45 Na pomoto je opozoril že I. Vrhovec (Zgodovina Novega me- sta, str. 79). 46 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 488. vahna žitna trgovina, se je mogel tem laže zelo hitro spremeniti v travnato površino. Glede demografskih izgub Novega mesta in Vi- šnje Gore leta 1599 razpolagamo danes še z drugimi viri in dognanji, ki tendenciozne navedbe obeh me- stnih predstojništev močno relativizirajo. Dragoce- ni so zlasti sodobni popisi mestnih obdavčencev in pustot, s katerimi dobi precej trdnejšo oporo zgolj na logiki sloneča »nejevernost«. Navedbe Novome- ščanov in Višnjanov v prošnjah za omilitev fiskalnih bremen so z njimi domala postavljene na glavo, pri čemer je avtorjem ob vseh olajševalnih okoliščinah mogoče očitati nič manj kot zavestno zavajanje in prikrajanje dejstev. Vsaj nekatere številke o živečih in umrlih so glede na naslovnika načrtno prirejene, ne- kje povečane, drugje zmanjšane. Prav razumljene so lahko šele, ko jih postavimo v kontekst posestno-de- mografske slike obeh mest, ki mu zato v nadaljevanju namenjamo tudi več prostora. Povsem zanesljivo je eno: kuga Novemu mestu ob zatonu 16. stoletja resnično ni prizanesla. Vice- domov odgovor nadvojvodi Ferdinandu v zvezi s sta- njem v mestu, kronološko prvi vir, ki sploh omenja novomeško kugo, namreč 26. marca 1600 pravi, da je Novo mesto v preteklem letu zaradi kuge v mestu in okolici izgubilo veliko prebivalstva (an bevölkerung entplöst).47 Povsem lažnega navajanja si Novomešča- ni samo sedem let po dogodkih kajpak ne bi drzni- li, še najmanj v poročilu komisarjem, ki so prihajali v mesto ugotavljat stanje opustošenosti in so lahko navedbe zlahka preverili. Nekaj drugega je vpraša- nje, koliko Novomeščanov je resnično umrlo za kugo oziroma kolikšna je verodostojnost navedb o več kot 800 umrlih skupaj s 149 hišnimi gospodarji. Številki 47 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 277, fasc. 140, lit. S XXI–9, 3. 3. 1600, 26. 3. 1600. Novo mesto po Clobuccarichevi skici (1601–1605), neposredno po kugi leta 1599. 50 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 sami po sebi nista nemogoči, vendar zastrašujoči, saj predstavljata več kot polovico mestnega prebivalstva. Novo mesto je namreč poldrugo stoletje pozneje (1754) štelo 1485 prebivalcev,48 kar pomeni pri skup- nem številu 262 hiš49 5,67 ljudi na hišo. V tegobni drugi polovici 16. stoletja, zaznamovani z ognjeni- mi ujmami, gospodarskim pešanjem in izpričanim odseljevanjem,50 je računati še z nižjim številom ljudi. Za ilustracijo naj povemo, da je imelo mesto sredi 18. stoletja natanko toliko mestni jurisdikciji zavezanih hiš (248),51 kot je bilo leta 1515 tej isti podsodnih naseljenih oštatov.52 O le malenkostno nižjem številu 242 ognjišč govori tudi kugi kronološko najbližji su- marni podatek iz leta 1541.53 O številu žrtev kuge na Kranjskem imamo za leto 1599 poleg novomeških 800 umrlih edinole Valvasorjevo številko 350 oseb za Ljubljano.54 Gle- de na podatek, da je štela kranjska prestolnica v tem času skupaj s predmestji okoli 700 hiš, je v njej po Valenčičevem izračunu prebivalo približno 5000 prebivalcev,55 350 žrtev kuge pa bi potemtakem zna- šalo nekako 7 % celotnega prebivalstva. Razlika z ugotovljenim novomeškim več kot polovičnim dele- žem umrlih je torej očitna. Vendar pa sporočenega visokega števila 800 umr- lih Novomeščanov ni moč vnaprej zavrniti zaradi gole »neverjetnosti« in molka sodobnih poročil.56 Deman- tirajo ga veliko bolj zanesljivi numerični viri – se- znama novomeških pustot – in komisijska poročila z 48 Po podatkih v poročni matici kapiteljske župnije je štelo me- sto v štirih zaporednih letih naslednje število prebivalcev: leta 1754 – 1485 oseb, 1755 – 1466, 1756 – 1441 in 1757 – 1390 (KANM, šk. 66, P/4 1754–1771, s. p.). 49 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 242 (mesto Novo mesto), No. 23, urbar 1756; N 11 (kapitelj Novo me- sto), No. 4, 28. 2. 1753. 50 Prim. Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, str. 76 sl. 51 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 242 (mesto Novo mesto), No. 23, urbar 1756. 52 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 105, fasc. 59, lit. R V–1, Der zaichnus abschrifft der hoffstett der statt Rue- dolphswerth anno 1515. 53 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 294, fasc. 151, 6/1549, No. 9, s. d. (Gemainer statt Ruedolfswerdt auszug). – Prim. [Dimitz], Beiträge zur fünfhundertjährigen Grün- dungsfeier, str. 34. 54 Valvasor povzema podatek po Schönlebnu (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 718). – J. Vrhovec, ki je temeljito obdelal gra- divo ljubljanskega mestnega arhiva, je glede števila obolelih in umrlih zapisal, da ni našel nobenih statističnih podatkov, temveč komajda namige ( Joh. Vrhovec, Die Pest in Laibach, str. 131). 55 Valenčič, Prebivalstvo in hiše, str. 118. – Leta 1600 je v obzi- danem mestu spadalo pod mestno gospoščino 359 hiš, skupaj z 42 ugotovljenimi hišami drugih gosposk pa okoli 400 (prav tam, str. 112). 56 M. Smole je dvom o verodostojnosti podatkov utemeljevala, češ da A. Koblar, iz katerega je črpala, ne navaja nobenih vi- rov, in da se podatki ne skladajo s sodobnimi ugotovitvami deželnih komisarjev (Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, str. 98). Pri tem ni vedela za Vrhovčevo objavo navedb po originalnem viru, spregledala pa je tudi dejstvo, da se poročila kužnih ko- misarjev o epidemiji v Novem mestu in na Dolenjskem na- našajo samo na prvo polovico leta 1599. začetka 17. stoletja. Gre za nedatirana komisijska po- pisa pustot, pogorišč in plačila nezmožnih davkopla- čevalcev, ki ju označujemo kot seznama A in B,57 in ju je bilo mogoče datirati v pozno poletje 1606, ko je mesto obiskala stanovska vizitacijska komisija.58 Na- stanku popisov leta 1606 je botrovala opustelost po kugi leta 1599 in še zlasti zaradi požara jeseni 1605. V seznamu A so popisane pustote, pogorišča in obu- božane še naseljene hiše (109), v seznamu B pa samo popolne pustote (80), t. j. pogorele in porušene hiše ter opustela zemljišča. Kolikor gre v obeh seznamih za podvajanja imen – teh je 27 – je treba take gospo- darje odšteti od skupnega števila, ki znaša tako 162 pustot.59 Ko bi se iz leta 1606 ohranil tudi tretji komi- sijski seznam, t. j. popis naseljenih domov, bi imeli za ta čas prvovrstni vir posestno–demografskega stanja, tako pa se je moč opreti le na sumarij na koncu sezna- ma A. Zgornji seštevek 162 pustot povsem ustreza sumarni navedbi o več kot 160 praznih, pustih, poru- šenih in požganih hišah, ki ne plačujejo nikakršnega davka. Na pogled ponuja tudi pokritje za 149 umrlih gospodarjev in 800 vseh umrlih, če bi vsako pustoto pomnožili z običajnim koeficientom 5 oseb na hišo. Vendar je v sumariju na drugi strani nesorazmerno nizko število »ne več kot 125« t. i. pravih, večinoma revnih gospodarjev z lastno hišo. Ostali so brez kvan- titativne navedbe označeni kot gostači (inwohner) in skednjarji (drescher), ki plačujejo le malo ali sploh no- benega davka. V njih je dejansko treba videti del od zgornjih 160 pustot, na katerih so vendarle prebivali ljudje, četudi samo gostači. Opustelost Novega mesta je bila tako predvsem strukturna: mesta trdnih gospo- darjev so zasedli davčno nesolventni ljudje, seštevek obeh sumaričnih postavk pa daje realno sliko pribli- žno 285 nekdanjih domov.60 57 Seznam A (1606): SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 258, fasc. 133, lit. R V–4. – Seznam B (1606): prav tam, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2. 58 V prid datacijama obeh seznamov v leto 1606 sta izjemno visoki števili pogorišč in pustot v obeh seznamih ter v sezna- mu A zabeleženi podatek, da je hiša Hansa Dlake na Trgu »pustota že 30 let od prvega požara« (1576). Trgovec Adam Gričar poleg tega po lastni navedbi ni zmogel plačila celot- nega davka z obrazložitvijo, da že sedem let (od kuge 1599!) ne opravlja nikakršne obrti in trgovine. Še bolj natančna je datacija seznama B, ki navaja vsoto davčne izgube 236 gld in 27 kr, na katero se sklicuje komisijsko poročilo 24. septembra 1606, sama vsota pa se je nanašala na prihodke od vdov, sirot in gostačev, popisanih v seznamu A (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2). 59 Hišni gospodarji v seznamih A in B so večinoma različni, saj se podvaja samo 24 imen, namesto treh gospodarjev iz seznama A pa v seznamu B nastopajo vdove in dediči. Ugo- tovitev, da je vseh 27 dvakrat popisanih hiš spadalo po sezna- mu A med popolne nenaseljene pustote, kaže z veliko mero zanesljivosti, da seznam B resnično obravnava samo povsem prazne in propadle domove. Tudi od štirih hiš, ki niso posebej označene kot puste, sta bili dve po seznamu A že dolgo opu- steli. 60 V letu 1515 je spadalo pod mestno jurisdikcijo 272 oštatov, od tega 248 naseljenih in 24 pustih (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 105, fasc. 59, lit. R V–1). Naslednji po- 51 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 Zdi se tudi, da smo razvozlali uganko, od kod Novomeščanom tako natančna številka 149 umrlih gospodarjev in več kot 800 vseh žrtev epidemije, ali pa lahko ponudimo vsaj en verjeten odgovor. Če od 162 pustot odštejemo tistih 13, za katere je iz sezna- mov razvidno, da gre za nova nenaseljena pogorišča, nastala šele v jesenskem požaru 1605, ostane namreč natanko 149 pustot z imenom in priimkom nekda- njega gospodarja. Toliko povsem opustelih in napol praznih domov, v katerih so prebivali mestni obubo- žanci, so lahko Novomeščani vsak trenutek pokazali prihajajočim vizitacijskim komisarjem, ki jim je bil podatek namenjen. In prav vse nekdanje domove, če- prav mnoge puste že desetletja, so spretno prodajali za žrtve kuge. Od tod je bil do številke več kot 800 vseh umrlih samo še korak. Mestni očetje so morali vsakega umrlega gospodarja samo pomnožiti s 5,4 družinskimi člani, t. j. s koeficientom, le malo niž- jim od povprečja hišnih prebivalcev, ugotovljenega za leto 1754. In končno je za število 800, kot že rečeno, zadoščal tudi veliko preprostejši izračun: okoli 160 pustot, pomnoženih s 5 osebami. Če pa se nadalje pomudimo pri analizi podatkov o 149 od skupaj 162 pustot (popolnih in deloma še poseljenih), od katerih smo odšteli 13 pogorišč, ki so po požaru 1605 postala popolne pustote, je raz- vidno, da je nemajhen del hiš opustel že pred letom 1599. Samo na seznamu A je takih starejših pustot 31, medtem ko seznam B sploh ne govori o stopnji opustelosti, pri čemer se zdi, da vsebuje ta popis po- polnih pustot predvsem ali sploh samo zgodaj propa- dle domove. Po odštevku 31 izpričano starih pustot, od katerih so nekatere izrecno označene kot puste že 20 ali 30 let, ostane tako največ 118 domov, ki bi potencialno lahko opusteli zaradi kuge. Dejansko je treba glede na povedano računati še s precej nižjim številom. Poleg tega ni nobena kuga kosila s tolikšno preciznostjo, da bi pomorila izključno cele družine, druge pa pustila povsem nedotaknjene. Če bi torej zahtevala življenja 149 gospodarjev, bi za njimi ne- dvomno ostalo večje število vdov in ne pičlih 12, ko- likor jih je mogoče našteti v obeh seznamih skupaj. Kot rečeno, je 149 hišnih gospodarjev prejkone samo kritje za enako število popolnih in delnih pustot, ki so ostale brez pravega, davčno sposobnega imetni- polni fiskalni vir je šele iz leta 1726, navaja pa 249 naseljenih hiš in 47 pustot, skupaj 296 stavbišč (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, 3. 10. 1726). Sumarij iz leta 1606 sicer zatrjuje, da je v soseski sv. Jurija še veliko nepopisanih pustih zemljišč in da je imelo mesto pred časom (vor zeiten) kar 337 dobro naseljenih hiš (wolbesezte heiser), vendar ni zanje v 16. stoletju nikakršne potrditve. Ko- misarji so lahko prišli do tako visoke številke s štetjem vseh pozidanih in praznih stavbišč, sploh pa je vprašljiva verodo- stojnost takšnega podatka, ki se nanaša na povsem nedoloč- ljivo preteklost. V istem viru je denimo tudi navedba, da je bilo v mestu »vor jarn« več kot 150 kašč (gödner), vendar je v seznamu B specificiranih samo 45 opustelih kašč. Številu 337 bi se približali le s seštevkom slednjih, vseh (ne)naseljenih stavbišč in obdavčencev, imetnikov raznih zemljišč. ka. Koliko popolnoma izpraznjenih domov in koliko vseh žrtev je torej zahtevala kuga leta 1599, ostane po opravljenih redukcijah zgolj predmet špekulacij. Odveč je denimo ugibati, ali je šlo za več ali za manj žrtev, kot jih navaja vir v zvezi s kugo leta 1625 (322, od tega 15 hišnih gospodarjev).61 Skleniti je mogoče le z zelo pavšalno oceno: do nekaj sto umrlih in vse- kakor veliko manj kot 149 gospodarjev. Epidemija leta 1599 še zdaleč ni bila odločilni, temveč razmeroma postranski razlog za evidentno slábo demografsko in gospodarsko stanje Novega mesta. Preiskovalna komisija, ki je pozno poleti 1606 natančno popisala davčno odmero oziroma izgubo vsake hišo in pustote, je v zaključnem poročilu dežel- nemu knezu zapisala, da se bodo preostali prebivalci odselili, mestece pa bo povsem propadlo, če se mu ne odobri prepotrebna davčna olajšava. Poglavitni razlog vse nesreče naj bi bili Turki, zaradi katerih je ugasnila nekoč cvetoča trgovina s Hrvaško in Slavonsko kra- jino.62 Toda opustelost in občutno obubožanje preo- stalih Novomeščanov nista mogla biti toliko posledi- ca nemirne meje, temveč predvsem splošnega upada neagrarnega gospodarstva in nato več zaporednih nesreč. Te so kot nalašč padle prav v čas hude kri- ze trgovine in obrti. Mesto so v razmeroma kratkem času prizadeli kar štirje požari – 1540, 1576, 1584 in 1605, ki so jih Novomeščani pozneje v raznih pro- šnjah in opisih mesta vztrajno navajali kot temeljni vzrok propadanja.63 Nad izseljevanjem meščanov, za katerimi so ostajale prazne hiše ali najemniki, so se pritoževali že leta 1564.64 Tri leta zatem, ko je me- sto leta 1576 skoraj popolnoma pogorelo, je mestno predstojništvo potožilo, da je zaradi odselitve nemalo meščanskih družin kar tretjina mesta ostala pustega ali nepozidanega (öder oder unausgebaut verbleibt).65 Pri tem je še posebej zanimivo, da se v prošnjah za davčni spregled ne po tem požaru in ne po onem leta 158466 niti z besedo ne omenjajo posledice kuge leta 1578, za katero je sploh edini znani vir Valvasor.67 Mesto je torej utrpelo znatne demografske izgube že pred kužnim letom 1599. Tako so Novomeščani leta 1595 v prošnji za komisijski ogled mesta, ki naj bi določil novo realno davčno odmero, zapisali, da so puste in prazne največje ter najimenitnejše hiše, 61 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, 9. 5. 1626. – Prim. Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, str. 82. 62 Prav tam, 24. 9. 1606 (komisijsko poročilo). 63 Npr. SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, 24. 9. 1606; šk. 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, s. d. (Gravamina, po letu 1637). Vse tri požare pozna tudi Valva- sor, ki jim dodaja še četrtega leta 1664 (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 488). 64 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–1, 25. 4. 1564. 65 StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1579–VI–11, 29. 5. 1579. 66 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 855, registra- turni protokoli št. 7 (1578–1584), pag. 301). 67 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 488. 52 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 medtem ko v preostalih kajžah vlada revščina.68 Ta se je v naslednjih letih, zaznamovanih s t. i. dolgo voj- no samo še poglobila. Vendar pa mestni očetje niso izposlovali vizitacijske komisije vse dotlej, dokler ni požar leta 1605 upepelil najbogatejšega in najvital- nejšega dela mesta.69 Šele ogenj je dal mestu pečat opustelosti in predstavljal zadosten razlog za obisk komisarjev. Kuga, ki so jo Novomeščani tik pred tem vpletli v poročilo o vzrokih žalostnega stanja, je ome- njena edinole tu. V nasprotju s požari in obuboža- njem jo – pomenljivo – pogrešamo tako v seznamih pustot kot v zaključnem komisijskem poročilu. Precej podobne so ugotovitve o demografskih in gospodarskih posledicah kuge v Višnji Gori, pod- krepljene s še zanesljivejšimi numeričnimi viri. Dru- gače kot za Novo mesto je dogajanje v Višnji Gori neprimerno bolje dokumentirano tudi s sodobnim virom, nastalim izpod peresa mestnega sodnika Ja- neza Zoreta. Gre za sodnikov letni obračun za čas enoletnega mandata od 24. junija 1599 do istega dne naslednje leto.70 Obračun ni tako zgovoren kot oni iz leta 1553/1554 in daje vtis skoraj povsem običajnega leta. V njem ni ne umrlih za kugo ne izrecno ime- novanih kužnih grobarjev, a vendar dovolj podatkov o tem, da je kužna nevarnost obstajala. Nikakor pa epidemija ni mogla pomoriti večjega števila ljudi, kar bi se sicer opazno odrazilo na opustelosti (polovice) mesta. Kot že rečeno, se je kuga po majskem poročilu deželnim stanovom dotlej Višnji Gori izognila71 in tudi pritožbe višnjegorskega mesta nadvojvodi Fer- dinandu, ki so jih v Gradcu prejeli 12. junija 1599, niti z besedo ne omenjajo njenega izbruha, čeprav govorijo o kar tretjinski opustelosti mesteca.72 Pismo je potovalo iz Višnje Gore največ dva tedna, tako da odraža stanje v mestu konec meseca maja ali prve dni junija. Z viri nepokriti čas do 24. junija 1599, v katerem bi morala kuga zahtevati glavnino svojega krvnega davka, je torej krajši od enega meseca, toda ob Zoretovem nastopu enoletnega sodniškega man- data ni bilo še nobenih znamenj razburjenja in ni- kakršne kužne zapore, ki bi bila v primeru nedavnih množičnih pogrebov nujna. Novoizvoljeni sodnik je vzel mestno mitnico v zakup za ustaljeno zakupnino 68 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 278, fasc. 141, lit. S XXII–16, s. d. (ad 23. 6. 1595). 69 Po Valvasorju je ogenj zajel Trg in upepelil 60 hiš (Valva- sor, Die Ehre XI, str. 488), medtem ko govorijo Novomeščani okoli leta 1640 o 56 pogorelih hišah (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, s. d., Grava- mina, po letu 1637). Najzanesljivejši vir, komisijski seznam A iz leta 1606, ne odstopa bistveno od zgornjih navedb, saj navaja med 162 pustotami 52 pogorelih hiš, od tega 30 na Trgu, preostale pa v okoliških ulicah. 70 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, mestni račun 1599/1600. 71 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 444, fasc. 291 d, pag. 743, ad 1. 5. 1599. – Prim. Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, str. 98. 72 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko šk. 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–3, 12. 6. 1599. (104 goldinarje in 50 krajcarjev) in tudi pogostitev meščanstva je navrgla toliko stroškov kot druga leta. Bolezen se je morala pojaviti šele pozneje, preneha- la pa je srede marca naslednjega leta. Mestni sodnik in pisar sta namreč 20. marca 1600 odpotovala v Ljubljano k vicedomu zaradi potrditve sodnikovega mandata in odprave kužne zapore (Wando), pri čemer so se mestni svétniki tisto jutro že povsem brez stra- hu zbrali na Zoretovem domu pri zajtrku. Potrditev vsakokratnega sodnika, ki je praviloma sledila kmalu po izvolitvi, se je torej zaradi paraliziranega prometa in poslovanja zavlekla na skoraj devet mesecev, ven- dar ne nujno »po krivdi« Višnjanov. Deželni uradi so se namreč jeseni 1599 zaradi ljubljanske kuge prese- lili v Kamnik, manj pomembne zadeve pa preložile na varnejši čas. Iz višnjegorskega sodniškega računa ni razvidno, kdaj so zaporo uvedli tudi v Višnji Gori in kakšne so bile njene neposredne posledice. Preha- janje Višnjanov iz mesta in tujcev v mesto ni videti v nobenem času kakorkoli ovirano. Jeseni je kot pona- vadi zasedala jesenska veča, mestni odposlanci so šli v Gradec in nazaj, Višnjo Goro so obiskovali deželni sli, berači in drugi tujci, mestni očetje pa so nastavljali nove uradnike.73 Tudi pozimi ni videti življenje v me- stu nič manj živahno. Zadnjega januarja so pobirali davek, 21. februarja je bila sklenjena kupčija za hišo mestnega sla, nakar so meščani naslednje dni urejali z župnikom zadeve glede duhovnega pomočnika in učitelja, vse to v času zapore, ki je 20. marca še veljala. Na kugo spominja sodnikov stroškovnik le posre- dno, ko omenja ta ali oni pogreb. Med 28. julijem in 8. avgustom 1599 sta bila denimo predstavnika me- sta poslana k župniku »zaradi pokopa onih iz Kriške vasi«, sredi novembra pa so na mestne stroške po- kopali nekega dečka. Konec leta 1599 ali v začetku naslednjega leta je umrl mestni sel, ki so mu brž našli naslednika, nakar je sodnik januarja 1600 zabeležil med izdatke pogostitev po pogrebu svinjskega pa- stirja. 10. aprila, potem ko sta se sodnik in pisar vr- nila iz Ljubljane in so kužno zaporo že odpravili, je nekdanji grobar Matija Arbeiter, tisti, ki je januarja pokopal pastirja, prejel obljubljeno plačilo za pogre- be (wegen seiner zuegesagten besoldung der begrebnus halber). Izraz pogrebi v množini ter postavka goldi- nar in 36 krajcarjev pričata, da je grobar pokopal vsaj nekaj ljudi. Vendar je tokrat pomenljivo zadoščal en sam grobar, medtem ko so leta 1554 zaposlili štiri in jim za mesec dni izplačali tudi skoraj štirikrat tolik- šno vsoto kot sedaj Arbeiterju. Epidemija slabega pol stoletja prej se poleg tega v sodnikovem računu omenja kar nekajkrat. V letnem računu 1599/1600 je kuga nasprotno enkrat samkrat izpričana nepo- sredno, in sicer šele po končani nevarnosti 14. junija 73 Delno zatišje je »ex silentio« datumov opaziti le med 15. av- gustom in 11. novembrom, a tudi v ta čas padejo jesenska veča, pregled sodnikovega in komornikovega računa za prej- šnje leto in obisk deželnega izterjevalca, kar vključuje obve- zne pogostitve. 53 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 1600, ko je deželni sel prinesel general o »Infection alda«. Višnjani so pred tem že vso pomlad živahno popravljali mestne zgradbe, pobirali davke, se prav- dali ter izpeljali telovsko procesijo in letni sejem. V sodobnem viru torej ni najti prav nikakr- šne osnove v podkrepitev trditve o polovici umrlih meščanov in gostačev. Poleg tega imamo za Višnjo Goro, začenši z letom 1567, kontinuirano vrsto let- nih davčnih registrov, ki si sledijo vsakih nekaj let in iz katerih sta jasno razvidni poseljenost mesteca in davčna solventnost Višnjanov. Gre za verodostojno podobo stanja, saj se je velika večina registrov ohra- nila v originalu v mestnem arhivu.74 Toda ravno kugi časovno najbližje letne registre iz let 1605–1607 poznamo samo v prikrojenih prepisih pri deželnem vicedomu oziroma notranjeavstrijski vladi.75 Njihove navedbe demantirajo precej drugačni podatki v davč- nem popisu iz naslednjega leta 1608, namenjenem interni rabi mesta.76 V zvezi z navedbo Višnjanov iz leta 1609, da je kuga pobrala več kot polovico mestnega prebivalstva, je pomenljiva vsebina njihovih prej omenjenih pri- tožb nadvojvodi Ferdinandu, prispelih v Gradec 12. junija 1599. Že tedaj, pred izbruhom epidemije, naj bi bila namreč v zadolženem in propadajočem mestu pustih več kot tretjina hiš in med slednjimi večina že porušenih (!). Mestno predstojništvo je nadalje tožilo, da v mestu ni nikakršne trgovine in obrti, od izbruha vojne leta 1593 pa skozenj korakajo razne vojske, ki ljudem večinoma samo nasilno jemljejo in ničesar ne plačujejo.77 Sodeč po davčnem registru iz leta 1591, ko je imela Višnja Gora več obdavčencev kot kadar koli v naslednjih dveh stoletjih, bi torej moralo priti do drastične opustelosti v zelo kratkem času nemir- nih osmih let. Omenjenega leta je štela Višnja Gora 89 domov, 11 činžnikov in gostačev ter 12 kmečkih kašč, pri čemer ni srečati še nobene prazne hiše ali plačila nezmožnega obdavčenca.78 Navedba o opu- stelosti tretjine hiš leta 1599 bi sicer ustrezala stanju, ki ga prikazujejo višjim oblastvom poslani davčni registri iz let 1605, 1606 in 1607, ko naj bi bilo v mestu ob velikem številu pustot naseljenih le še 59 do 63 hiš.79 Vendar pa so omenjeni trije popisi pri- loženi v podkrepitev prošenj za odpis davčnih zao- stankov, originalni register pa že naslednje leto 1608 izkazuje precej več domov (76). Verjetnost naselitve 17 pustot v pičlem letu dni je treba brez pomislekov 74 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, davčni registri 1567– 1740. 75 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–4, davčni register 1605, 1606. – StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1611–III–105, Steuer register 1607. 76 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, davčni register 1608. 77 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko šk. 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–3, 12. 6. 1599. 78 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, davčni register 1591. 79 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–4, davčni register 1605, 1606. – StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1611–III–105, Steuer register 1607. izključiti. Primerjava imenskega fonda gospodarjev je namreč pokazala, da nastopajo določene osebe in priimki samo v letih 1591 in 1608, medtem ko so jih v registrih iz let 1605–1607 preprosto zamolčali ali prišteli k pustotam. Dejansko število naseljenih hiš tudi pred letom 1608 nikakor ni znašalo samo okoli 60 in ni moglo biti znatno nižje od 76, nakar se je pri tej številki ustalilo vsaj za dve desetletji. Zgovorna potrditev povedanega je naselitvena kontinuiteta Višnje Gore. Diskontinuiteta posestni- ških rodbin je bila sicer večja v 17–letnem obdobju med letoma 1591 in 1608 kot v 10–letnem razmiku od 1581 do 1591, vendar glede na različno trajanje med obdobjema skorajda ni razlik. V prvem obdobju 1581–1591 se je na isti posesti ohranilo 48,2 % vseh rodbin hišarjev, v drugem (1591–1608) pa 32,6 %. Tako so med 1581 in 1591 vsako leto v povprečju za- menjale gospodarja 4,4 hiše, v razmiku 1591–1608, zaznamovanem s krizo, vojno in kugo, pa celo samo 3,5 hiše, vključno s tistimi 13, ki so opustele.80 Vseeno je pomenljiva ugotovitev, da je število hišnih gospodarjev Višnje Gore med letoma 1591 in 1608 nazadovalo z 89 na 76, kar pomeni za dobro sedmino (14,61 %) glede na izhodiščno stanje. Ker niso dokumentirane spremembe iz osmih let pred letom 1599 in iz šestletja do 1605, je moč o nihanju stanja poselitve v vmesnem času in v kužnem letu zgolj ugibati. Vsekakor pa zgornje številke potrjujejo, da v mestu malo pred kugo leta 1599 ni mogla biti pusta tretjina hiš, kaj šele da bi bolezen pobrala polo- vico prebivalstva. Vedoč za njeno divjanje drugod po deželi, so Višnjani deset let pozneje, leta 1609, epi- demijo preprosto vpletli v prošnjo za davčni spregled. Iz nekaj umrlih oseb, katerih število je morda doseglo dvomestno številko, so naredili polovico meščanov in gostačev, kar bi pri 89 naseljenih hišah (1591) zneslo več kot 200 ljudi. Kuga je bila torej za opustelost Vi- šnje Gore v resnici skoraj nepomemben razlog. Tudi zato je niti z besedo ne omenjata vicedomova vizita- cija leta 1609 in poročilo deželnemu knezu o stanju mesta, kjer so sicer izčrpno opisanimi vsi mogoči ra- zlogi nazadovanja.81 Ob zatonu 16. stoletja je Višnja Gora doživela krizo kot gospodarstvo celotne dežele nasploh. Po vicedomovih besedah sta močno nazadovali obrt in trgovina, tako da je večina prebivalstva živela od ob- delovanja zemlje.82 Posledica skupka razlogov je bila prva stopnja procesa pustenja mesteca, ki pa se je že 80 Med 1581 in 1591 je isti gospodar ostal v 31 hišah (36,5 %), v nadaljnjih 10 hišah (11,8 %) se je ohranil priimek, 5 oseb in 7 priimkov pa je prešlo na druge hiše in nepremičnine. Med letoma 1591 in 1608 se je obdržalo 18 istih gospodarjev (20,2 %), v 11 hišah (12,4 %) je izpričan nespremenjen pri- imek in poleg teh drugod v mestu še 12 priimkov hišarjev (13,5 %). 81 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–4, 11. 7. 1609. – StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1611–III–105, 24. 1. 1610. 82 Prav tam. 54 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 v prvih letih 17. stoletja končala. Koliko je k slabi- tvi mestnega gospodarstva posredno in neposredno prispevala sama kuga leta 1599, je mogoče samo ugi- bati. Tisto leto je denimo mestni sodnik Janez Zore prejel skoraj polovico manj davka (63 gld, 40 kr) kot njegov predhodnik za leto 1596 (116 gld).83 Kuga je bila tega vsaj deloma kriva že zaradi zapore mesta in oviranega pretoka ljudi in blaga po vsej deželi. Kuga v letih 1623–1627 Naslednja velika epidemija je Kranjsko posre- dno ogrožala z Goriškega in Štajerskega od pomladi 1623, ko so uvedli stroge varnostne ukrepe in zaporo deželnih meja. V deželi je leta 1624 najprej obiskala Gorenjsko in se nato za dve leti preselila na Dolenj- sko.84 Stanovski registraturni protokoli jo na kranj- skih tleh prvič beležijo marca 1624, potem ko so se od februarja 1623 vrstile zapore in straže proti oku- ženim sosednjim deželam. Graški tajni dvorni svet je decembra 1624 ukazal zastražiti Ljubljano, proti čemur so se stanovi pritožili, češ da je ukrep nepo- treben. Deželnoknežji infekcijski red je izšel šele v avgustu 1625, ko je bila kuga v polnem teku tako na Kranjskem kot ponovno tudi na Štajerskem. Regest o poročilih, prepovedih in odredbah, izdanih med decembrom 1624 in koncem leta 1625, omenja na Dolenjskem naslednje kraje: Žužemberk, Ribnico, Sotesko, Novo mesto in njegovo okolico. Pred kon- cem leta 1625 je kuga začasno potihnila in nato spet izbruhnila maja 1626, saj so morali stanovi obnoviti patent kužnemu komisarju za Dolenjsko, stiški opat pa je takoj zatem prosil za prepoved sejmov. Epide- mija je dokončno ugasnila pred novembrom 1626, ko se v stanovskih registraturnih protokolih začnejo ni- zati le še poročila zdravnikov, komisarjev in postavke nastalih stroškov.85 Med dolenjskimi mesti in trgi je kužna epidemija najbolje dokumentirana v Novem mestu, od koder imamo kar dve številki umrlih oseb. O posledicah je najzgovornejše poročilo novomeškega mestne- ga sodnika in sveta v prošnji deželnemu vicedomu 9. maja 1626, naj se mestu odobri pravica pobiranja mostnine. Poročilo pravi, da je mesto še v večji stiski in propadanju, odkar je prejšnje leto umrlo za kugo (laidige Infection) 322 oseb, med njimi 15 hišnih go- spodarjev, katerih vdove in otroci so prišli na beraško palico. Hiše so ostale puste, od njih ni pričakovati plačila davka, mestni svet pa ne more vzdrževa- 83 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, mestna računa 1596/1597 in 1599/1600. 84 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 102–103. – Koblar, O člo- veški kugi, str. 51. – SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 480, fasc. 295 b, pag. 999–1001, 20. 10. 1625. 85 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 860, registra- turni protokoli št. 14 (1619–1629), pag. 261, 267, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 279, 291, 300, 308, 320, 337, 339, 344, 364, 377, 385, 390, 395, 398, 405, 415, 419, 421, 424, 428, 440, 455 in 478. ti ubožcev, saj je za izkazovanje krščanske pomoči vsem moral poseči ne le po mestnih, temveč tudi po svojih lastnih dohodkih. Kuga se je v mestu začela meseca maja in prenehala 4. novembra 1625, čeprav se je do zdaj (maja 1626) drugod nadaljevala. Ne- kaj nevoščljivcev naj bi nato z govoricami in poročili preprečevalo odprtje mesta vse do 21. marca 1626. Novomeščanom je bilo tako onemogočeno vsakršno delo, zaradi predolgotrajne zapore pa so utrpeli tudi škodo in uničenje na poljih in v vinogradih. Priza- dela jih je še menjava kovancev leta 1624, vsi mestni dohodki so šli za obolele za kugo in druge potrebe. Iz Ljubljane so za 100 goldinarjev naročili zdravila za bolnike, nakar je hotel novomeški lekarnar izsiliti na podlagi pobotnice še 300 goldinarjev, tako da naj bi znašali vsi mestni dolgovi skoraj 1000 goldinarjev. Novomeščani so ostali dolžni tudi davek stanovom za leto 1625 in druge dajatve, za katere so se zdaj nadejali spregleda plačila.86 Kot vse kaže, so navedbe v prošnji zelo realne. Kljub prenehanju kuge v samem mestu v začetku no- vembra 1625 se je zapora nadaljevala še štiri mesece in pol, kar je prizadelo predvsem mestno gospodar- stvo, tako neagrarno kot agrarno. Dejanska nevar- nost je resnično minila, saj je zdravnik Janez Scheidt januarja 1626 že drugič priganjal deželne stanove k ukinitvi mestne zapore, a so ti ostali še naprej neo- majni, tako kot so junija istega leta grozili mestu z rubežem zaradi davčnih zaostankov.87 O podrobno- stih v zvezi s samo epidemijo bi se lahko poučili iz poročila o delovanju doktorja Scheidta v času kuge, ki so ga stanovski poverjeniki zahtevali od mestnega predstojništva,88 a se, če je sploh nastalo, ni ohranilo. Zato pa bolje poznamo spor Novomeščanov z njiho- vim lekarnarjem Martinom Antonom Mladkovičem. Ta je deželnim stanovom že konec leta 1625 predlo- žil specifikacijo zdravil (disponsirten medicinalien), ki jih je v času kuge porabil v mestu in okoliških krajih, pri čemer so bili znaten odjemalec meščani in naj- uglednejši mestni svétniki. Stanovski poverjeniki so nato sporočili mestnemu sodniku in svetu, da stanovi ne nameravajo pokriti nastalih stroškov ter ju pozva- li, naj sredstva za plačilo lekarnarju čimprej izterjata od dolžnikov.89 Epidemija v mestu ob povedanem ni bila niti najmanj nedolžna nesreča. 322 umrlih, med njimi 15 hišnih gospodarjev, sta realni številki, veliko bolj ve- rodostojni kot pretiravanja o kugi četrt stoletja prej. Številki ne dajeta vtisa večje verodostojnosti zgolj 86 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, 9. 5. 1626. – Prim. Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, str. 82. 87 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 860, registra- turni protokoli št. 14 (1619–1629), pag. 397; šk. 480, fasc. 295 b, pag. 1423–1424, 6. 6. 1626. 88 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 860, registra- turni protokoli št. 14 (1619–1629), str. 419. 89 Prav tam, šk. 480, fasc. 295 b, pag. 1115–1116, 20. 12. 1625. 55 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 zato, ker sta tokrat precej nižji, ampak predvsem za- radi narave poročila. Le–to, sestavljeno samo nekaj tednov po odpravi kužne zapore, je neprimerno ažur- nejše kot ono o kugi leta 1599, ki je nastalo šele s sedemletnim zamikom in bilo tako rekoč mimogrede vtkano med razloge za globljo strukturno krizo. To- kratno poročilo, čeravno prav tako v obliki prošnje za pomoč, nasprotno razmeroma temeljito opisuje neposredne posledice epidemije. Tudi Valvasor pravi šestdeset let pozneje, da je kuga leta 1625 umorila 400 oseb.90 322 oziroma 400 umrlih leta 1625 je pri- merljivih s še zanesljivejšo številko o 331 umrlih v mestu v celem letu 1715, ko se je prebivalcev lotevala vročinska bolezen.91 Če obe števili umrlih primerja- mo s 1485 prebivalci Novega mesta leta 1754,92 je obakrat pomrla dobra petina ljudi. Vendar je treba za leto 1625 računati s šibkejšo naseljenostjo mesta kot posledico že več kot polstoletne strukturne krize, požarov in epidemij. 322 umrlih je tako gotovo pre- segalo četrtino Novomeščanov, če že ni bilo bliže eni tretjini. Kuga leta 1625 je položila v grob tudi mnogo ljudi v novomeški okolici, zato je Rudolf baron Para- deiser leta 1627 v spomin nanjo postavil cerkvico sv. Roka dober streljaj od svojega gradu Pogance.93 Malo verodostojna so tista poročila o kugi, ki so nastala bolj mimogrede. Zanimivo je, kako sta k no- vomeški nesreči pristavili svoj lonček obe belokranj- ski mesti, Metlika in Črnomelj. Ko so Novomeščani zaprosili cesarja za pravico pobiranja mostnine in od- pis dela davčnih zaostankov, so bila sosednja mesta leta 1632 v zvezi s prošnjo povprašana za mnenje. Vsa mestna predstojništva – ljubljansko, višnjegorsko, kr- ško, kostanjeviško, metliško in črnomaljsko – so ena- ko kot gospoščinski oskrbnik v Žužemberku privolila v takšno obliko pomoči in pritrdila, da je Novo mesto zaradi raznih nesreč resnično močno oslabelo, izgu- bilo veliko prebivalcev in opustelo, še posebej zaradi dolgotrajne kužne zapore pred nekaj leti.94 Metličani so k temu dodali, da je kuga pri njih razsajala dlje kot v Novem mestu ter pobrala veliko mladih in starih ljudi, zato naj bi bila Metlika tudi dlje časa zaprta. Redki preživeli so prišli zaradi slabih letin v hudo sti- sko, tako da naj bi se iz obeh mest – Novega mesta in Metlike – veliko ljudi odselilo drugam.95 Črnomaljci, ki so svoj odgovor dva tedna pozneje skoraj dobese- dno prepisali od Metličanov, so prav tako poudarili, da so bili dlje kot Novomeščani pod kužno zaporo, tako kot v Novem mestu pa naj bi v Črnomlju skoraj polovica mesta ostala prazna (ödt stehen).96 Metliča- 90 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 488. 91 Po sumarni navedbi v: KANM, šk. 66, M/1 1704–1728. 92 Po sumarni navedbi v: KANM, šk. 66, P/4 1754–1771, s. p. 93 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 103. Prim. Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 449. 94 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, 7. 2. 1632, 31. 8. 1632, 9. 9. 1632, 20. 9. 1632, 1. 8. 1632, 15. 8. 1632, 30. 10. 1635. 95 Prav tam, 1. 8. 1632. 96 Prav tam, 15. 8. 1632. ni in Črnomaljci si dolgotrajne zapore svojega mesta zagotovo niso izmislili, medtem ko sta umrljivost in posledična izpraznjenost vprašanji zase, saj se za ti dve dolenjski mesti ne moremo opreti na noben drug vir in še manj na kakršnekoli strukturno numerične vire ali podatke o mestni populaciji – za Metliko do začetka in za Črnomelj vse do srede 18. stoletja.97 O kugi v letih 1625–1626 molčijo tudi mlajše pritožbe in Valvasor, od sodobnih poročil pa razpolagamo edi- nole z notico iz avgusta 1625 o prepovedi tedenskih sejmov v Metliki.98 Epidemija je zelo pozno, šele v drugem valu, za- jela mesto Krško. Po analih, zapisanih v krški mestni knjigi, naj bi prišla v to obsavsko mesto okoli vseh svetih leta 1626 in trajala do novega leta. Notica o kugi je nadvse skopa, še posebej če jo primerjamo z zapisi o nesrečah in tegobah v naslednjih letih, zato gre upravičeno sklepati na precej omejeno število žrtev.99 Zelo skopa so tudi poročila o kugi v Višnji Gori, z viri domače provenience sicer najbolje dokumen- tiranem dolenjskem mestu. Letni obračun mestne- ga sodnika za leto 1623/24 omenja epidemijo samo posredno: v mesecu juliju 1623 je zabeleženo plačilo pristojbine za sla, ki prišel iz Ljubljane zaradi epi- demije (wegen der infection).100 Sodniška obračuna za naslednji dve leti nista ohranjena, zato pa priča o popolni varnosti pred kugo poročilo glede popra- vila deželne ceste, poslano stanovom iz Višnje Gore avgusta 1625.101 Letni obračun mestnega sodnika za čas od srede leta 1626 do srede leta 1627 govori nato o že povsem običajnem življenjskem utripu in živahnem pretoku ljudi in blaga. Le sredi decembra 1626 so Višnjani ljubljanskim kužnim »provizor- jem« poslali sla s poslanico o kugi. Razen omembe sporočila ne vemo ničesar o njegovi vsebini in o pre- teklem dogajanju v mestu. Izpričano je bila v tem času ogrožena širša višnjegorska okolica, saj je so- 97 Metliške matične knjige se začenjajo po požaru leta 1705, črnomaljske pa šele z letom 1753. Prvi popis metliških hiš imamo v terezijanskem katastru (1752), potem ko je le malo prej (1744) nastal najstarejši ohranjeni popis za Črnomelj. 98 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 860, registra- turni protokoli št. 14 (1619–1629), pag. 428. 99 Naslednje leto 1628 je širšo krško okolico prizadel rušilni potres in meseca avgusta povodenj, v kateri je utonilo veliko kmetov in živine. Strahoviti potresni sunki so se nadaljevali pet kvartalov do srede leta 1629, to in naslednje leto pa je kot posledica prejšnjih nesreč zavladala v deželi tolikšna draginja, da naj bi »več tisoč« ljudi zaradi lakote propadlo in pomrlo, »več tisoč« pa se jih je z otroki in ženami izselilo na Ogrsko in Turško ter se podvrglo tamkajšnji oblasti. – SI AS 1080, Zbirka Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko, Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo in Historičnega društva za Kranjsko, šk. 8, fasc. 11, Civitatensia, Mesto Krško, mestna knjiga 1539–1679. – Prim. [Dimitz], Annalen der landesfürstlichen Stadt Gurk- feld, str. 84. Prim. Koblar, Iz kronike krškega mesta, str. 22. – Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 103. 100 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, mestni računi, 1626/1627. 101 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 480, fasc. 295 b, pag. 729–730, 4. 8. 1625. 56 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 dnik tisto leto zaradi kuge (der infection halber) pre- jel precej okleščen prihodek od mitnice v Šmartnem pri Litiji, ki jo je imelo mesto v zakupu.102 Sodeč po mestnih davčnih registrih pa kuga zanesljivo ni izpraznila višnjegorskih domov. Potem ko je mesto leta 1620 štelo 79 naseljenih domov in dve pustoti, je leta 1629 zaslediti komaj kaj spremenjeno stanje: 78 hiš in eno pusto zemljišče ter zelo močno konti- nuiteto posestniških priimkov.103 Od drugih dolenjskih meščanskih naselbin ku- žni val očitno ni obšel trgov Žužemberk in Ribnica, saj se oba kraja omenjata v registraturnem regestu o »kužnih poročilih« iz let 1624–1625.104 Kakšna poročila so od tod prejeli deželni stanovi, ni znano, tako kot o tej kugi skoraj v celoti pogrešamo sodobne vire. Edinole Ditrih baron Auersperg je konec av- gusta 1625 mimogrede potožil, češ da je epidemija tako opustošila žužemberško gospostvo, da bo imel od njega komaj kaj koristi in pobranega davka.105 Po V. Travnerju, ki pa ne navaja vira, naj bi v Žu- žemberku leta 1625 umrlo toliko ljudi, da jih niso mogli pokopati na običajnem pokopališču. Za gro- bišče so uporabili farovško njivo, poslej imenovano »Kužni dol« in zemljišče na desnem bregu Krke, kjer so naslednje leto s pomočjo prebivalcev doline Zgor- nje Krke postavili cerkev sv. Roka v Stranski vasi.106 Glede žužemberških žrtev se postavlja vprašanje, kolikšne so bile dejanske demografske izgube v sa- mem trgu. Posredni odgovor ponuja ob pomanjkanju relevantnejših virov primerjava posestnega stanja v gospoščinskih urbarjih iz let 1619 in 1644, ki pa ne daje slutiti hujših pretresov, saj se je v četrtstoletnem razponu celo podvojilo kajžarsko naselje na desnem bregu reke.107 Prav tako je mogoče ugotoviti močno posestno kontinuiteto, in sicer 57,3 % posestnih enot v rokah istih rodbin kot leta 1619.108 V zvezi z Ribnico se kuga pojavi samo v omembi »kužnega poročila«, poslanega deželnim stanovom v letih 1624–1625.109 Iz tega časa naj bi bila sicer 102 Sodnik Janez Markovič je 5. februarja 1627 prejel od mitni- čarja Janeza Plevnika samo 6 gld, 22 kr in 1 den (SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, mestni računi: 1626/1627). 103 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, davčna registra 1620 in 1629. 104 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 860, registra- turni protokoli št. 14 (1619–1629), pag. 395. 105 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 480, fasc. 295 b, pag. 793, 30. 8. 1625. 106 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 103. 107 Leta 1619 je v Žužemberku izpričanih 89 (hišnih) posestni- kov, od tega 68 v ožjem trgu na levem bregu Krke izpričanih in 21 onstran reke. 25 let pozneje se je število vseh gospodar- jev povzpelo na 103, pri čemer je v ožjem trgu upadlo na 62, na desnem bregu Krke pa narastlo na 41. 108 Očitna je razlika s kontinuiteto posestniških rodbin v 27 letih od 1592–1619 (34,04 %) in v 25–letnem obdobju 1644–1669 (30,10 %). – ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–68, Urbar Seisen- berg 1592–1597, fol. 1–28v; A–15–70, Urbar Seisenberg 1619–1624, fol. 1–35v; A–15–72, Urbar Seisenberg 1644– 1651, fol. 1–28; A–15–80, Urbar Seisenberg 1669–1676, s. p. 109 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 860, registra- tudi cerkev sv. Roka v Dolenji vasi,110 medtem ko otipljivejših sledov epidemije zaenkrat ne poznamo niti iz mlajših virov. Posredno morda o kugi vendar- le pričajo urbarji ribniškega gospostva. Med letoma 1621 in 1659, ki razmejujeta obdobje, v katerem je Dolenjska doživela dve hujši kužni epidemiji, se je namreč močno izpraznil ribniški trg. Urbar iz leta 1659 beleži naravnost drastičen upad tako hubnih posestnikov kot kajžarjev: v trgu je popisanih samo 51 gospodarjev domov ali kar 44 % manj kot slaba štiri desetletja prej, leta 1621, ko jih je bilo še 91.111 Tudi naslednjega pol stoletja se naselitvena podoba ni bistveno spremenila na bolje,112 čeprav naj bi bila Ribnica po Valvasorjevih besedah po požarih v 15. stoletju zdaj spet »v razcvetu«. Pri tem je pomenljivo, da pozna Valvasor samo nesrečne dogodke 15. in 16. stoletja, molči pa o morebitnih kužnih epidemijah ali požarih v polpreteklem času 17. stoletja.113 Trideseta leta 17. stoletja veljajo za slovenske de- žele na splošno kot čas zatišja med dvema večjima epidemijama v dvajsetih in štiridesetih letih. Med- tem je kuga leta 1631 dodobra opustošila Istro in še posebej prizadela mesti Koper in Pulj.114 Vesti o kugi so Kranjsko vznemirile poleti in jeseni 1631, ko je bolezen razsajala v Rihemberku na Goriškem ter na Kranjskem v okolici Ilirske Bistrice in v meste- cu Lož,115 ni pa izpričano, da bi od tod preskočila tudi na Dolenjsko. Letni obračun mestnega sodnika Višnje Gore navaja denimo 19. avgusta 1631 samo prihod deželnega sla s poročili o sektah, davčnih za- ostankih in o kugi.116 Nato se je črna smrt pojavila spet leta 1634, ko je kosila zlasti v Vipavski dolini in se dotaknila Idrije. Podobno omejen obseg je imela na Dolenjskem, kjer je obiskala Krško, medtem ko o njenih pojavih drugod ni poročil.117 Mestni anali Krškega pripovedujejo, da je prišla v mesto okoli sv. Luke (18. oktobra) 1634 in ostala do treh kraljev (6. januarja) naslednjega leta. Zaradi hitrega ukre- panja in previdnosti ni umrlo več kot 22 oseb, med turni protokoli št. 14 (1619–1629), pag. 395. 110 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 103. – Valvasor omenja cer- kev sv. Roka samo kot 18. ribniško podružnico »nechst bey der Pfarrkirchen« (Valvasor, Die Ehre VIII, str. 796). 111 SI AS, AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica, knj. 2, urbar 1621, s. p.; knj. 3, urbar 1659, s. p. 112 Gospoščinski urbar iz let 1707–1710 navaja na hubah in kaj- žah v trgu skupaj 56 posestnikov (SI AS, AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica, knj. 4, urbar 1707–1710, fol. 1–46). 113 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 468. 114 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 103–104. 115 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 861, regi- straturni protokoli št. 15 (1630–1645), pag. 59, 63 in 66. – Ložani sami v opisu kuge ne govorijo o žrtvah, temveč samo o gospodarski škodi, zaradi kuge pa jim je uspelo izposlovati prestavitev cerkniškega sejma v svoje mestece (SI AS 1, Vice- domski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 184, fasc. 104, lit. L I–8, 28. 11. 1635; šk. 197, fasc. 107, lit. L XX–8, 16. 11. 1634). 116 SI AS, Mestni arhiv Višnja Gora, fasc. 4, Mestni računi: 1631/2. 117 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 104. 57 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 njimi večinoma otroci.118 Omejenost umiranja na otroško populacijo postavlja vprašanje, za kakšne vr- ste epidemijo je v resnici šlo. Bojazen pred katastrofo je bila očitno večja od dejanske nevarnosti, ocena 22 umrlih kot majhno število pa navaja k domnevi, da je za kugo v letih 1626–1627 umrlo več ljudi kot zdaj. Kuga v letih 1645–1650 Ta kužna epidemija, razširjena po Kranjskem, Koroškem in Štajerskem, na Dolenjskem po vsej ver- jetnosti ni vzela toliko človeških življenj kot prejšnje, ostala pa je močno zasidrana v ljudskem spominu, zlasti ker je šlo za časovno najdaljšo in na Kranjskem tudi zadnjo kugo večjih razsežnosti. Valvasor, ki no- bene kuge ne omenja pri toliko krajih kot to, časovno najbližjo, je po štirih desetletjih distance objektivnej- ši v ocenjevanju obsega epidemije kakor predstojni- štva prizadetih mest. Po njegovih besedah je kuga leta 1646 močno pustošila ter pobrala veliko ljudi v Krškem in okolici. Podobno nedoločno pravi za Me- tliko, da ji je Bog isto leto poslal kugo, ki je pogosto divjala med prebivalci v mestu in zunaj njega. V po- glavju o Novem mestu se izreče tudi o številčnosti njenih žrtev in v primerjavi s 400 smrtnimi primeri leta 1625 umrle v letu 1648 imenuje »le osemnajst oseb«. Pri ostalih mestih in trgih se mu epidemija izpred štiridesetih let očitno ni zdela vredna omem- be, saj le pri opisu gradu in tržca Svibno omeni, da je kuga leta 1646 hudo razsajala v svibenski okolici.119 Tudi sodobna poročila epidemije v drugih delih Do- lenjske ne poznajo; popoln molk vlada o prisotnosti epidemije na Kočevskem in v znatnem delu zahodne Dolenjske. Novemu mestu, ki je precej opustelo v kužnih epidemijah 1599 in 1625, je kužni val 1645–1650 očitno precej bolj prizanesel kot nekaterim drugim delom Dolenjske. Historiografska in druga literatura razen Valvasorja o morebitni kugi v dolenjski metro- poli molči, navaja pa njeno divjanje v Krškem, Metli- ki, na Svibnem in v Radečah.120 Sodobna poročila so po obsegu, vsebini in namenu nastanka zelo različna ter za posamezna prizadeta mesta in trge predvsem neenakomerno ohranjena. Za skoraj vse vključno z najpomembnejšim virom – registraturnimi protoko- li kranjskih deželnih stanov – je poleg tega značilna vsebinska lapidarnost. To je hkrati prva kuga, ki jo je zaslediti v cerkvenih matičnih knjigah, ki so iz tega časa ohranjene le za dve dolenjski mestni župniji, 118 SI AS 1080, Zbirka Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko, Muzej- skega društva za Slovenijo in Historičnega društva za Kranj- sko, šk. 8, fasc. 11, Civitatensia, Mesto Krško, mestna knjiga 1539–1679, s. p. – Prim. [Dimitz], Annalen der landesfürst- lichen Stadt Gurkfeld, str. 84.– Koblar, Iz kronike krškega mesta, str. 22–23. 119 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 242, 389, 488 in 502. 120 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 110–111. – Koblar, O člove- ški kugi, str. 51. kapiteljsko v Novem mestu in višnjegorsko. Krono- loško dokaj povezano je epidemijo moč spremljati v stanovskih registraturnih protokolih od junija 1646, ko se je pri Krškem preselila čez Savo na dolenjska tla, do leta 1650, ko je bila dežela zopet varna. Med seboj neodvisna sinhrona poročila o hudih posledicah epidemije obstajajo za Krško. Kuga se je v bližini mesta pojavila junija 1646, in sicer v vaseh Dole in Vrhovlje, ki ju je stanovski poverjeniški urad nemudoma ukazal zastražiti.121 Septembra 1647 je epidemija tod doživela tolikšen razmah, da so zaprli brodova čez Savo pri Krškem in Rajhenburgu, za- stražili okužene kraje in imenovali za kužnega komi- sarja barona Jošta Moscona. Kuga je v samem mestu Krško izpričano razsajala oktobra 1647, nakar je re- gistraturni protokoli ne omenjajo.122 Po V. Travnerju so morali zapreti celo mestno ulico, v okolici, zlasti v Leskovcu in Turnu, pa naj bi bolezen pomorila mno- go ljudi.123 Drugih sodobnih poročil o epidemiji žal ne poznamo in tudi anali v mestni knjigi tik pred kugo prenehajo. Valvasor jo postavlja v leto 1646 in pravi, da je krški mestni svet v spomin nanjo že na- slednje leto 1647 na gričku pri mestu s pomočjo dru- gih ljudi postavil cerkev sv. Rozalije.124 Daljše poročilo o posledicah kuge v Krškem je nastalo slabo desetletje pozneje in je z dolenjskega prostora hkrati najobsežnejše o tej epidemiji. Vi- zitacijska komisija deželnih stanov, ki je leta 1655 obiskala Krško, je poročala, da je kuga strahovito razsajala dve leti zapored, umorila nemajhno število meščanov, žena in otrok, medtem ko drugim ta čas ni bil dovoljen izhod iz mesta. Ker se niso imeli s čim preživljati, so prišli na beraško palico, nato pa zapu- stili mesto in odšli živet drugam.125 Med vizitacijo je nastal tudi seznam opustelih hiš, ki pa se je ohranil samo v prepisu iz leta 1677, ko so mu dodali še med- tem nastale pustote in ga naslovili kot: »Popis hiš, ki so povsem propadle zaradi kuge, nenehnih bremen nastanitev vojakov, poplav in velike božje kazni.« V samem mestu so našteli 16 pustot, »pod hribom« pa 23, skupno 39, pri čemer različne stopnje opustelo- sti pričajo, da v nekaterih primerih sploh ni šlo za popolne pustote in da je prenekatera nastala pred še pred kugo.126 V celoti je v mestu in pod hribom opu- 121 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 862, registra- turni protokoli št. 16 (1646–1652), pag. 43, 46, 48. – Baronu Mosconu, lastniku gospostva Krško, in krškemu beneficiatu, ki sta imela v omenjenih vaseh podložnike, je bilo tako kot sodniku in mestnemu svetu Krškega hkrati ukazano, naj po- skrbijo za oskrbo vaščanov z življenjskimi potrebščinami. 122 Prav tam, pag. 141 in 185. 123 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 110. 124 Valvasor, Die Ehre VIII, str. 744. 125 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 171, fasc. 97a, lit. G VIII–8, 25. 8. 1655. 126 Prav tam, Specification B, s. a. – V mestnem jedru je eno t. i. pustoto naseljeval obubožan lastnik, dve pa revni vdovi. Dve pustoti sta bili že spremenjeni v vrtova, medtem ko pri eni opuščeni hiši ni bilo več sledov, kje je stala, od dveh so ostali deli zidovja, od treh pusto zemljišče, pet pa se jih je podiralo. 58 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 stelo 20 stanovanjskih zgradb, 5 jih je bilo zapisanih propadu, v 14 pa so prebivali obubožani lastniki ali drugi stanovalci.127 Kolikšen delež pustot je torej povzročila epide- mija in kolikšnega drugi dejavniki? Ne gre prezreti dejstva, da je kuga v naslovu popisa pustot navedena kot prvi vzrok opustelosti mesta. Na svoj način potr- juje njeno vlogo pri nastanku nezavidljivega stanja 20 popolnih pustot, veliko vdov in z dninarji naseljene hiše. Kuga je torej po zelo grobih ocenah lahko po- morila od nekaj deset pa tudi do več sto ljudi. Ko- likšen delež vseh krških domov so predstavljale de- janske in potencialne pustote, je mogoče ugotavljati le posredno, saj vse do srede 18. stoletja ne poznamo natančnega števila mestnih hiš. Glede na seznam plačnikov dvornega činža v gospoščinskih urbarjih iz let 1570 in 1575128 bi bilo tedaj v Krškem 141 oziro- ma 145 stanovanjskih zgradb.129 Po močnem trendu praznjenja se je število naseljenih hiš v prvi polovici 18. stoletja ustalilo in je leta 1752 znašalo 110,130 kar pomeni okoli 600 prebivalcev. Ravno krški primer služi v nemajhno oporo pri relativiziranju poznejših šokantnih poročil o gospo- darskih posledicah kuge. Krčani so leta 1747 v prošnji deželnim oblastem za potrditev mestnih privilegijev navedli, da so njihovi sejmi propadli zaradi sejmov v štajerski vasi Videm onstran Save, nastalih v času, ko je na Štajerskem in Kranjskem morila kuga (ley- dige Contagion). Ker so bili tedaj vsi prehodi čez reko zaprti, naj bi trgovci in živina, namenjeni v Krško, ostali na štajerski strani reke na tleh deželskega so- dišča Brežice.131 Kranjska reprezentanca in komora je v poročilu dunajski dvorni pisarni podprla prošnjo krškega mesta po vrnitvi sejmov v Krško, vendar s pridržkom: če se ugotovi, da so bili videmski sejmi resnično uvedeni brez dovoljenja.132 Lastnik breži- škega gospostva je z urbarjem iz leta 1609 dokazoval starost videmskih proščenj in poudaril, da ni najti niti besede o kakšnem prenosu sejma ali o kugi.133 Pod hribom je bilo od 23 pustot devet hiš porušenih, ostalim je grozil propad oziroma so v njih živele le revne vdove in mestni dninarji. 127 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 171, fasc. 97, lit. G VIII–8, s. d. (1677, Specification B). 128 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 81, fasc. 46, lit. G VIII–7, urbar gospostva Krško 1570, s. p. – SI AS 174, Tere- zijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 141, No. 29, urbar gospostva Krško 1575, pag. 481–529. 129 Do take številke pridemo ob predpostavki, da kašče niso ime- le stalnih prebivalcev in da ostala stavbišča (oštati) v resnici označujejo stavbe. J. Koropec govori o 146 družinah, pri če- mer je družino preprosto pripisal vsaki od 146 oseb, ki so dvorni činž plačevale v denarju (Koropec, Krško v obdobju, str. 53). 130 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 239, No. 7, 13. 6. 1752. 131 SI AS 6, Reprezentanca in komora za Kranjsko v Ljubljani, šk. 49, fasc. XIX, lit. G, No. 1, prezentirano 16. 5. 1747. 132 Prav tam, 8. 6. 1747. 133 Prav tam, 19. 9. 1756, priloga B. Prepričanje Krčanov, da so sejme prenesli v Videm zaradi kuge, in sicer one leta 1646,134 potrjuje tudi krška kapucinska kronika, ki pa so jo začeli pisati šele poznega leta 1757. Po njenih besedah si je me- sto prizadevalo za vrnitev sejmov, dokler ni okrožni glavar leta 1757 razglasil potrditve mestnih privilegi- jev, med katere so spadali tudi sejmi.135 Vzrok zatona mestnih sejmov zaradi kuge se sicer na pogled zdi povsem verjeten, vendar pa sta obe različici interpre- tacije propada krških in razcveta videmskih sejmov nastali šele več kot sto let po domnevnem času in razlogih za njihov prenos čez Savo. V drugi polovici 17. stoletja namreč v sicer zgovornih mestnih pritož- bah in prošnjah take razlage ni zaslediti. Še posebej je pomenljivo, da stanovska vizitacijska komisija leta 1655 sejmov sploh ne omenja, čeprav nazorno opi- suje tako neposredne kot posredne posledice kuge.136 Sejmarjenje v Vidmu je za Krčane dejansko postalo pereč problem šele pozneje. Tako so leta 1674 izpo- slovali prihod stanovske komisije, ki si je ogledala sočasna sejma v Vidmu in Krškem ter potrdila, da je krški sejem domala propadel, videmski pa cvetel.137 In vendar komisijsko poročilo sploh ne govori o času nastanka videmskih sejmov in o kugi, tako kot po- grešamo vsakršne razloge opisanega stanja v pritož- bah krškega mesta iz leta 1686, ki ima med drugim veliko povedati o gospodarskih posledicah štajerske kuge 1679–1683.138 Podobno poročilo kot pri opisu Krškega je dal Valvasor o divjanju črne smrti v Metliki. Kuga naj bi leta 1646 pogosto pustošila ne le med mestnimi pre- bivalci, temveč tudi po metliški okolici.139 Kot kaže, je v Beli krajini začela svoj ples malo pozneje kot na krških tleh, v sami Metliko pa vdrla prej kot v Krško. S svojim izbruhom je julija 1646 prestrašila okoliška gospostva, ki so najpozneje avgusta postavila straže, potem ko je na metliških tleh že pomrlo nekaj lju- di. Konec nevarnosti je bilo marca naslednjega leta (1647), ko sta metliški mestni sodnik in svet stano- vom predložila danes neohranjeni seznam umrlih prebivalcev mesta in prosila, naj Metliko osvobodijo kužne zapore (Infections Bando), kar se je takoj tudi zgodilo. Vendar pa so se nato Metličani zaman po- tegovali za povrnitev 245 goldinarjev stroškov, ki jih je mesto po njihovem utrpelo zaradi kuge (Infectios Uncosten). Stanovski poverjeniški urad je namreč no- 134 Sklicevanje na kugo leta 1646 je bilo slejkoprej pod vplivom razširjenega védenja o kugi v tem letu, ki jo omenja Valvasor pri opisu krškega mesta (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 242). 135 Kapucinski samostan Krško, Archivum loci Ppff. capucino- rum Gurgfeldi erectum anno Domini MDCCLVII, pag. 9. – Prim. objavo: Benedik – Kralj, Kapucini na Slovenskem, str. 435. 136 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 171, fasc. 97a, lit. G VIII–8, 25. 8. 1655. 137 Prav tam, lit. G VIII–15, 4. 5. 1674. 138 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 171, fasc. 97, lit. G VIII–8, 13. 4. 1686. 139 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 389. 59 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 vembra 1648 zavrnil njihovo prošnjo z utemeljitvijo, da je kugo zanesel v Metliko eden njenih prebival- cev.140 Pri tem lahko upravičeno pričakujemo večjo uvidevnost deželnih oblasti do revnega obmejnega mesteca, ko bi se število umrlih resnično povzpelo v stotine, kot so pozneje trdili Metličani, in bi se mesto dodobra izpraznilo. Pomenljivo je tudi, da za Metliko drugače kot v primeru Krškega ne poznamo prav nobenih mestnih pritožb ali poročil, ki bi nastali še v času, ko je bila epidemija aktualna. Vse kaže, da tudi tu ni zahteva- la malo žrtev, o čemer imamo sicer šele štiri deset- letja mlajša poročila. Po Valvasorju je Metlika zaradi pogostih turških vpadov, kuge in požarov zdrsnila v veliko revščino, iz katere se ni mogla dvigniti vse do njegovega časa.141 Malo prej, leta 1686, so skušali tudi sami Metličani kot enega od vzrokov propada prikazati kugo okoli leta 1646, ki naj bi »pred kakimi 40 leti« v dveh letih umorila nerealno visoko število 1200 ljudi, in sicer prvo leto 700 in nato 500. Tedaj naj bi propadlo veliko hiš in mestno obzidje, nakar v mestu zaradi pomanjkanja sredstev in številčnega upada ljudi sploh niso več gradili. Nadalje so naved- li, da se noče v Metliki naseliti noben tujec in da se odseljujejo celo domačini, ker mesto propada in ne zmore plačila letnih obveznosti.142 Že L. Podlogar, ki je podatek objavil, očitno ni verjel navedbi o sku- paj 1200 umrlih Metličanih, zato je število umrlih preprosto razširil z mesta še na podeželje: »L. 1646 je silna kuga pomorila nad 1200 ljudij v mestu in žu- pniji (!)«.143 Vendar v viru iz leta 1686 ni niti besede o župniji, temveč zgolj o umrlih v samem mestu. Pod- logar je dobro vedel, da Metlika ni imela niti pribli- žno toliko prebivalcev, kot naj bi bilo samo umrlih, zato pa se mu je še zdelo verjetno, da bi toliko ljudi izgubila župnija, saj je tudi Valvasor govoril o kugi v mestu in okolici (nicht nur in der Stadt sondern auch in dem umligenden Lande).144 Za ilustracijo kaže navesti podatek iz leta 1721, ko so pri velikonočni spove- di v celotni metliški župniji našteli 3026 oseb.145 V primeru relativne konstantnosti prebivalstva tri četrt stoletja prej bi torej epidemiji podleglo približno dve petini župljanov. Povsem nevzdržen pa je podatek o 1200 umrlih prebivalcih mesta, ki sredi 17. stoletja zagotovo ni premoglo toliko ljudi. Najstarejši ohra- njeni popis mestnih hiš iz leta 1752 ima skupaj z gra- dom 166 domov, od tega le 49 v obzidanem mestu 140 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 862, regi- straturni protokoli št. 16 (1646–1652), str. 56, 63, 122, 123 in 298. 141 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 389. 142 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 233, fasc. 124, lit. M XXXIII–9, 6. 5. 1686. 143 Podlogar, Požari v Metliki, str. 46. 144 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 389. 145 DOZA, Abt. Österreich, BÖ, K 304, Specificatio eorum qui per elapsum anni quadrante usque ad 5. 6. anni curentis 1721 etc. in 117 v predmestju,146 kar pomeni kakih 900 pre- bivalcev. Tretje dolenjsko mesto, kjer kugo sredi 17. sto- letja omenjajo tako Valvasor kot sodobni viri, je Novo mesto. Epidemija se je tu prvič pojavila av- gusta 1646, a je moralo biti mesto decembra istega leta že dovolj varno, da so ga »obiskali« vznemirjeni vojaki iz karlovške trdnjave, ki so od mestnih očetov zaradi pomanjkljive oskrbe zahtevali potrebni živež. Vesti o kugi so Novomeščane vnovič prestrašile maja 1648. Zaradi okuženih treh vasi v okolici Šentjerne- ja so stanovskim poverjenikom predlagali dva kužna komisarja, ki sta bila takoj tudi imenovana. Že juni- ja sta imela komisarja dovolj opravka v samem No- vem mestu, ko sta enako kot mestni sodnik in svet prejela navodila o nadaljnjem ravnanju in osamitvi okuženih ljudi. Pretok ljudi med mestom in okoli- co so straže onemogočale do meseca avgusta ali več kot dva meseca. Avgusta 1648 se je zdela nevarnost povsem mimo, a je moral stanovski poverjeniški urad Novomeščane posebej opomniti, naj pred ukinitvijo zapore ne zapuščajo mesta in ne nadlegujejo straž. Nevarnost je povsem prešla šele septembra, ko se je mestno predstojništvo zahvalilo stanovom za marlji- vega poslanega zdravnika Gašperja Vizjaka.147 Kot je stanovom sredi novembra pisal Sigmund pl. Gusič, so mesto najprej dodobra izčrpali vkvartirani vojaki, takoj po njihovem odhodu pa je vanj vdrla kuga, za- radi katere je bilo izolirano dobrih 14 tednov.148 Prisotnost kuge je v času izolacije dokumentira- na tudi v krstni matični knjigi novomeške kapitelj- ske župnije. Za vpisi treh krščencev 1. junija 1648 je samostojen nedatiran zapis »tempore pestis«, med- tem ko je bil naslednji krščenec 7. junija krščen pod sumom okuženosti (in suspectione infectionis seu pe- stis). 18. in 21. junija so prinesli h krstu v kapiteljsko cerkev dva novorojenca iz že okuženih hiš (ex infecta domo), nakar od 24. junija vse do 23. julija ni zabe- ležen noben krst. V mesecih junij, julij in avgust so bili krščeni sploh samo domači mestni novorojenci, saj oni iz okoliških vasi niso mogli priti do prvega zakramenta.149 Žal novomeška župnija v tem času še 146 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 242, No. 1, 1. 8. 1752. 147 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 862, registra- turni protokoli št. 16 (1646–1652), pag. 65, 248, 255, 256, 272, 273 in 280. 148 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 503, fasc. 300 b, pag. 1027, 10. 11. 1648. 149 KANM, šk. 63, R/3 1645–1652. – Junija 1648 je prejelo krst 7 otrok, julija samo 2 in avgusta zopet 5. Nizko število do- mačih krščencev v dveh poletnih mesecih ni samo po sebi ničesar nenavadnega, saj je značilno tudi za ostala leta. Mo- goča posredna posledica epidemije bi bila edinole znižanje skupnega števila krščenih mestnih otrok dve leti po kugi, v letih 1649 in 1650. Medtem ko je bilo krščencev iz samega mesta brez podeželja leta 1646 vsaj 49, leta 1647 prav toliko in v kužnem letu 1648 celo 57, jih navaja krstna matica 46 za leto 1649 in samo 34 leta 1650, nakar njihovo število leta 1651 poskoči na 65, kar priča, da si je mestno prebivalstvo medtem v regeneracijskem pogledu povsem opomoglo. 60 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 ni vodila evidence umrlih, ki bi lahko edina zane- sljivo potrdila Valvasorjevo navedbo, da je kuga leta 1648 vpisala v mrliški register 18 oseb. Razlika s 400 žrtvami, kolikor jih Valvasor navaja za leto 1625, je torej očitna.150 Hkrati gre za sploh edini primer dveh primerljivih numeričnih podatkov istega izvora. Majhen pomen posledic te epidemije za Novo mesto sicer najzgovorneje ilustrirajo pritožbe mesta kma- lu po letu 1651, ko navajajo le posledice kug v letih 1599 in 1625, epidemije izpred nekaj let pa sploh ne omenijo.151 V času kužnih valov 1645–1650 je v nasprotju z drugimi izbruhi epidemij slabše dokumentirano do- gajanje v Višnji Gori. Pri tem je treba najprej pou- dariti, da razpoložljivi viri tokrat vztrajno molčijo o kakršnikoli nevarnosti v mestecu ali njegovi okolici. Vendar pa bi na epidemijo lahko pomisliti ob dejstvu, da je Višnja Gora močno opustela prav v 26-letnem časovnem razponu, ki ga zamejujeta mesta davčna registra iz let 1629 in 1655. Medtem, v času trideset- letne vojne, je mestece zajel drugi in zadnji val praz- njenja domov; število naseljenih hiš je z 78 padlo na samo 58 ali kar za četrtino.152 Toda pomenljivo je dejstvo, da Višnjani v opisovanju razlogov za gospo- darski in demografski zaton mesta nikoli ne omenijo ne kuge ne kakšnega požara,153 v poročilih drugih mest dveh sicer zelo priljubljenih krivcev zla in mej- nikov njegovega začetka. Ni dvoma, da Višnjani česa takega ne bi pozabili omeniti, če bi epidemija v dru- gi polovici štiridesetih let 17. stoletja vzela življenje vsaj nekaj someščanom ali če bi za določen čas za- pahnila mestna vrata pred zunanjim svetom. O čem podobnem ni nikakršnega sledu niti v relevantnem sodobnem viru – višnjegorski krstni matici, v kateri nevarna leta po številu krstov v ničemer ne odstopajo od ostalih let.154 Prav tako ni poročil, da bi kuga razsajala v naj- manjšem dolenjskem mestu Kostanjevici. Septem- bra 1646, ko je bolezen že krožila po krških tleh in morila v Metliki, so stanovi sicer okarali kostanjevi- škega mestnega sodnika in svet zaradi zanemarjanja nadzora in upiranja ukazom kužnega komisarja o okrepitvi straž. Januarja 1647 je bilo treba Kostanje- vičane vnovič opozoriti, da se morajo znebiti Usko- kov, ker med njimi razsaja kuga. A mestecu očitno ni grozila dovolj velika nevarnost, zato njegovi pre- 150 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, str. 488. 151 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, Bericht A, s. d. 152 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, davčna registra 1629 in 1655. 153 O tem: SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 284, fasc. 145. 154 NŠAL, ŽA Višnja Gora, Matične knjige, R 1638–1656 in R 1656–1672. – V župniji Višnja Gora je bilo vseh krstov v štiridesetih letih 17. stoletja (547) sicer za tretjino manj kot v petdesetih letih (811), v mestu pa skoraj za pol manj (60 : 110), vendar leta, ko je kuga razsajala drugod po Dolenjskem, v ničemer ne odstopajo od ostalih let. V krstni matični knjigi drugače kot v novomeški tudi ni nobene zaznambe o kugi. bivalci ukazov iz gospodarskih razlogov kajpak niso upoštevali.155 Tudi računska knjiga opata kostanjevi- ške cisterce ne daje v teh letih slutiti nič posebnega, če izvzamemo nekoliko povišane stroške za zdravila, ki jih je samostanu v letih 1645–1648 dobavljal no- vomeški lekarnar.156 Od trgov se v obravnavanih letih v zvezi s kugo omenja samo Mokronog. Avgusta 1646 so stanovi napotili svojega poročevalca barona Konrada Rues- sensteina v okuženo Novo mesto, okolico Klevevža in Mokronoga, kjer se je bolezen prav tako pojavila, septembra pa so zaradi epidemije na mokronoškem območju in proti Radečam zaprli deželne ceste.157 Kužna komisarja za ta okoliš sta zaradi suma oku- ženosti (contagions suspect) izolirala (in bando ge- sezt) mokronoški grad in celoten trg, ukazala podreti glavne mostove čez Mirno ter mokronoškim podlož- nikom prepovedala opravljati tlako. Lastnik gradu in gospostva Ernest Schere pl. Schernburg je njuno ravnanje označil kot povsem neutemeljeno in nedo- pustno ter zadnji dan leta 1646 pri deželnih oblasteh izposloval ukaz komisarjema o odpravi vseh omejitev, če se njegove navedbe izkažejo kot resnične.158 V krajih, kjer navaja kugo literatura, so posledice epidemije najmanj oprijemljive v okolici Svibnega, tedaj v bistvu že ugaslega tržca v bližini veliko po- membnejših Radeč.159 Valvasor je namreč edini zna- ni vir, ki tukajšnjo epidemijo sploh omenja, medtem ko je s sodobnimi zapisi ni mogoče ne potrditi ne zanikati. Tokrat zaradi neohranjenih urbarjev ni mo- goče niti zasledovanje posestne (dis)kontinuitete v svibenskem gospostvu. Prav tako ni ničesar znanega o domnevnem divjanju kuge v Radečah, ki ga ome- nja V. Travner.160 Kužna epidemija druge polovice štiridesetih let 17. stoletja za mestno in trško prebivalstvo Dolenj- ske prejkone ni bila tako pogubna kot epidemije poprej, zlasti dvakrat v Novem mestu. Vendarle pa je ta kuga zaradi dolgotrajnosti in ponavljajočih se valov zapustila med ljudmi globoke sledove in tra- jen spomin v spomenikih materialne kulture. Kakor drugod na Slovenskem sega v čas neposredno po tej 155 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 862, registra- turni protokoli št. 16 (1646–1652), pag. 74 in 110. 156 SI AS 746, Cistercijanski samostan Kostanjevica, knj. 8, ra- čunska knjiga opata Jurija Zagožna 1638–1659, s. p. – Leta 1645 je opat izplačal lekarnarja s 45 gld, leta 1646 s 33 gld in 7 kr, leta 1647 mu je plačal 55 gld, leta 1648 – 20 gld in konec leta 1650 spet večjo vsoto – 42 gld in 12 kr. 157 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 862, registra- turni protokoli št. 16 (1646–1652), pag. 65 in 345. 158 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 500, fasc. 300a, pag. 1223–1224, 31. 12. 1646. 159 Leta 1602 je tržec premogel le še 14 gospodarjev oštatov (SI AS 1074, Zbirka urbarjev, II/22u, urbar gospostva Svibno 1602, s. p.), medtem ko jih je imel po urbarju okoli leta 1439 še 30 (Milkowicz, Beiträge zur Rechts- und Verwaltungsge- schichte Krains, str. 7–8; prim. Koropec, Žebnik, Radeče in Svibno, str. 56). 160 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 110. 61 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 kužni epidemiji nastanek več cerkva. Že leta 1647 je na gričku nad Krškim nastala romarska cerkev sv. Rozalije v spomin na kugo v mestu in okolici. Od treh pomembnejših belokranjskih kužnih spomeni- kov, cerkva, posvečenih sv. Roku, je prva podružnica sv. Roka pri Metliki. Tudi Črnomaljci, ki jim je črna smrt očitno prizanesla bolj kot Metličanom, naj bi leta 1646 povečali cerkvico sv. Sebastijana, zgrajeno po letu 1510.161 Osamljeni pojavi epidemij v drugi polovici 17. stoletja Tri desetletja po dolgotrajnem kužnem valu 1645–1650 ni slovenskih dežel vznemirjala nika- kršna epidemija večjih razsežnosti. Tu in tam sicer obstajajo poročila o posameznih lokalno omejenih pojavih »kuge«. Na Dolenjskem se je pojavila vsaj dvakrat in obakrat naj bi njeno prisotnost ovekove- čili v zapisniku kostanjeviške opatije. V Kostanjevici in njeni okolici v vasi Slinovce se je oglasila oktobra 1663, vendar je šlo v resnici menda za legar, ki so ga povzročile poplave Krke. Bolezen se je nato v ko- stanjeviški okolici ponovno pojavila leta 1676,162 a v samem mestu očitno ne prvič ne drugič ni zahtevala žrtev. Iz tega časa namreč obstajajo mestne pritož- be v obliki analov 1618–1684, ki navajajo nesreče in tegobe skoraj za vsako leto od 1662 do 1684, ne da bi omenile kakšno epidemijo.163 Nobenega dvoma ni, da bi kostanjeviški mestni očetje poročali o še tako omejeni umrljivosti ali kužni zapori, saj poleg poža- rov in poplav niso pozabili navesti vrste drugih manj pomembnih dogodkov in nevšečnosti, kot denimo neprijetno soseščino Uskokov ali slabe letine. Čeprav nimamo prav nobenih poročil, je malo zatem zelo verjeten izbruh neke vrste epidemije na drugem koncu Dolenjske. Pozornost namreč prite- gne povečano število umrlih na Kočevskem, od ko- der od leta 1599 ne poznamo vesti o morebitni kugi. V prvi mrliški matični knjigi župnije Kočevje, sicer najstarejši tovrstni knjigi z Dolenjskega, izstopajo prva štiri leta od začetka 1669 do konca leta 1672, ko je bilo pokopanih 317 oseb, od tega 44 iz mesta Ko- čevje. Naslednjih šest let od 1673 do vključno 1678 je število umrlih in pokopanih za primerjavo znašalo le 287 in med njimi samo 27 iz mesta. Nesorazmerje med številoma umrlih v prvih štirih in nadaljnjih še- 161 Prav tam, str. 110 in 111. – O gradnji črnomaljske cerkve piše Leopold Podlogar takole: »1646 se je ob času hude kolere (sic!) zidala cerkev sv. Sebastijana v mestni lozi. Za prezbiterij se je porabila prejšnja kapelica, zidana po letu 1510« (Podlo- gar, Kronika mesta Črnomlja, str. 64). 162 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 112, citira »zapisnik kosta- njeviške opatije«, ki ga danes pogrešamo. Ohranjena je samo računska knjiga opata Jurija Zagožna 1638–1659 (SI AS 746, Cistercijanski samostan Kostanjevica, knj. 8). 163 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 184, fasc. 104, lit. L II–2, 31. 3. 1686. – Prim. Dimitz, Zur Geschichte der Städte, str. 79–80; Dimitz, Geschichte Krains, str. 59–60. stih letih vodenja mrliške matice sicer ni posebno ve- liko, pokažejo pa se bistvene razlike pri številu umrlih po posameznih letih in zelo velika nihanja v umiran- ju mestnega prebivalstva. Mesto Kočevje je leta 1669 zabeležilo kar 20 smrtnih primerov od skupno 73 umrlih v župniji, leta 1670 so umrle samo štiri ose- be in 1671 le dve, nakar so v naslednjem letu (1672) zopet pokopali 18 Kočevcev. Zgovorna je ugotovitev, da v 17. stoletju v samem mestu nikoli niso našteli več kot 12 smrti in še to število pade v čas vrhunca štajerske kuge leta 1680 in 1681.164 Kočevska župnija je tudi edini primer vodenja evidence umrlih med obravnavanimi mesti in trgi med kugo 1679–1683. Resda se je kuga Kranjske tedaj v veliki meri ognila po zaslugi nagle in učinko- vite zaščite, medtem ko je hudo prizadela slovensko Štajersko,165 toda ravno Kočevska utegne biti tisto območje na Kranjskem, ki ga je črna smrt vendar- le obiskala. O kočevskih krošnjarjih kot prenašalcih bolezni s popotovanj po severnih deželah lahko samo domnevamo, ne da bi o tem in sploh o kugi na Ko- čevskem obstajalo kakršnokoli sodobno poročilo. V prid epidemiji govori visoko število umrlih, in sicer leta 1680 v celotni kočevski župniji 89 ter kar 138 leto pozneje. Tudi v mestu Kočevje je obe leti umrlo po 12 ljudi. Kljub visokim številkam tako na prelo- mu iz šestdesetih v sedemdeseta leta kakor v začet- ku osemdesetih let 17. stoletja pa v mrliški matični knjigi pogrešamo kakršno koli obstransko opazko, da je šlo resnično za kugo ali določeno infekcijo.166 Tudi ranocelnikove smrti v času največje umrljivo- sti ne moremo obravnavati drugače kot hipotetično posledico okužbe zaradi zdravljenja obolelih.167 Kaj je povzročilo povečano umiranje, ostaja torej odprto vprašanje. Zdi se, da to ni mogla biti kuga, kakršno so poznali na Štajerskem in Goriškem, če je le verje- ti Valvasorjevi navedbi o ljubljanski Rokovi procesiji leta 1683 v zahvalo Bogu, ki je »celotno kranjsko de- želo čudežno obvaroval pred nagnusno kugo, razšir- jeno po vseh sosednjih deželah.«168 Konec koncev pa bi kuga vendarle zlahka prišla na Kočevsko, tipično tranzitno in krošnjarsko območje, tako kot je denimo leta 1682 s Hrvaškega preskočila na Goriško in zlasti v Gorici zahtevala visok krvni davek.169 164 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1666–1724. – Šte- vilke o umrlih v mestu so zlasti za sedemdeseta in osemdeseta leta zelo zanesljive, saj v mrliški matici le redko manjka kraj bivanja umrlega. Desetletno povprečje 1671–1680 med pre- bivalci mesta znaša sicer 10,9 umrlih, vendar predvsem zara- di visoke umrljivosti v začetku sedemdesetih let, v desetletju 1681–1690 samo 4,2 osebe, v letih 1691–1700 pa na leto 5,3 smrtnih primerov. 165 O štajerski kugi gl. Umek, Kuga na Štajerskem, 80 f. 166 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1666–1724. 167 14. junija 1681 je preminil 73-letni meščan in mestni kirurg Bernard Jager. 168 Valvasor, Die Ehre VIII, 822. 169 Prim. Jelinčič, Črna smrt v Gorici, str. 116 sl.; Waltritsch, Prvi goriški kronist, 196. 62 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 Da se je dolgotrajna kuga Kranjski izognila, se je bilo treba zahvaliti predvsem naglim, strogim in zato učinkovitim ukrepom zoper njeno širjenje. Razumlji- vo je, da se s kužnimi zaporami na deželnih mejah v prvi vrsti niso strinjali tisti, ki jih je ustavitev prometa prizadela pri opravljanju poklicne dejavnosti. Posle- dice zaprtja so tako ali drugače občutili zelo široki sloji prebivalstva, zato je bilo temu primerno veliko nasprotovanja in kršenja prepovedi v raznih oblikah tihotapljenja ljudi in blaga mimo kužnih straž. Na vrhuncu štajerske epidemije sredi leta 1681 si kaže kot primer varnostnih ukrepov in njihovih krši- tev ogledati utrinek iz življenja obmejnega Krškega, od vseh dolenjskih mest življenjsko najbolj navezane- ga na zaledje onstran Save. Po kratkotrajnem odprtju kranjsko-štajerske meje aprila 1681170 je z najvišjega mesta že konec junija prišel ukaz, da zaradi kuge pri Radgoni in v celjski četrti nihče s štajerske strani ne sme na Kranjsko, tudi če bi imel »fede«, podložni- 170 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 538, fasc. 308b, pag. 417, 18. 4. 1681. kom pa so strogo prepovedali čolnariti po mejni reki Savi.171 Malo zatem so bili v začetku julija na osmih kranjsko-štajerskih mejnih prehodih imenovani kuž- ni komisarji (contagions comissarien), večinoma iz vrst večjih zemljiških gospodov, ki so jim na vsakem prehodu dodelili od enega do štiri stražnike. Dolenj- sko so varovale straže v Litiji, Radečah, Impolci, v Sevnici na štajerski strani Save in v Krškem.172 Krški kužni komisar Orfej grof Strassoldo je vzel nalogo očitno zelo resno, saj je konec julija poročal dežel- nemu glavarju in stanovom o svojem ukrepu, ki je služil »kot kazen in drugim za zgled, da ne bodo tako zlahka občevali s sumljivimi ljudmi«. V Krško je namreč prišel neki jermenarski pomočnik s Ptuja, ki ga je Strassoldo, ker je slišal o razsajanju kuge v ptuj- ski okolici, nemudoma poslal nazaj na Štajersko in opozoril tamkajšnje straže v Vidmu in Rajhenbur- gu, da prišlek nima »fede«. Čeprav komisar ni videl v tem nikakršne nevarnosti, je nekaj Krčanov, ki so s 171 Prav tam, pag. 655–661, 28. 6. 1681. 172 Prav tam, pag. 687–688, 4. 7. 1681. Označevanje okuženih hiš v Gorici. 63 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 fantom občevali in pili, ukazal zastražiti v dveh hišah v mestu, v katerih so sicer živeli, mestni sodnik pa mu je za to odstopil stražnike. Poverjenikom dežel- nih stanov je komisar nato naslovil vprašanje, ali naj zastražene izpusti oziroma kako naj z njimi ravna.173 Previdnejši od Krčanov so bili Novomeščani, ki jih je mogel krški primer tudi česa naučiti. Zanimivo je poročilo kužnega komisarja iz Brežic, poslano ko- nec novembra 1681 krškemu komisarju grofu Stras- soldu. Mestni sodnik Novega mesta je brežiškega komisarja obvestil o odpovedi novomeškega letnega sejma na adventno nedeljo in ga prosil, naj o tem ob- vesti Hrvate ter poskrbi, da ne bo mogel nihče priti čez Savo na sejem. Komisar je obvestilo sicer poslal v Samobor, vendar to ni zaleglo, saj se je veliko Hr- vatov vendarle skrivaj napotilo v Novo mesto preko Gorjancev. Brežiški komisar je nato pisal novome- škemu sodniku, naj vsako sumljivo osebo spravi v lazaret (in ein Lasareth schaffen) in kaznuje, odvzeto blago pa kot tihotapljeno sežge.174 Štajerska kuga 1679–1683 je Kranjsko sicer naj- bolj prizadela posredno s povzročitvijo gospodarske škode. Dolgotrajna zapora deželnih meja in prepove- di sejmov ter vseh oblik množičnega zbiranja ljudi so močno škodile trgovini in sejemskim krajem, zlasti mestom in trgom. Prepovedi sejmarjenja so denimo močno udarile po mestni blagajni Novega mesta, od tod prošnje vicedomu, naj mestnemu sodniku za leti 1681 in 1682 spregleda dolžno remanenco.175 Nekaj let zatem, leta 1686, je mestno predstojništvo Kr- škega med vzroki opustelosti mesta na prvem mestu navedlo prav kugo na Spodnjem Štajerskem. Krčani zaradi nje niso mogli niti do svojih zemljišč onstran Save in še manj hoditi na štajerske tedenske in letne sejme.176 Kuga v Črnomlju in okolici 1691–1692 Nalezljive bolezni so se na Slovenskem do konca 17. stoletja pojavljale le še sporadično, tem huje pa so divjale na sosednjem Ogrskem in Hrvaškem, kar je potegnilo za seboj večkratno zaporo deželnih meja. Huda kužna epidemija na Ogrskem in Hrvaškem je leta 1690 ogrozila vzhodne predele mejnih avstrij- skih dežel, morila na Dunaju in v štajerski Radgoni ter se naslednjega leta 1691 pojavila na skrajnem ju- govzhodu Kranjske, na črnomaljskih tleh.177 Šele o tej kugi imamo zadovoljivo bero verodostojnih poro- čil, večinoma nastalih neposredno po njenem zatrtju. Med njimi najdemo sploh edine ohranjene sezname obolelih in umrlih oseb med katero od kužnih epi- demij. 173 Prav tam, pag. 959–960, 30. 7. 1681. 174 Prav tam, šk. 539, fasc. 308 b, pag. 1373–1376, 27. 11. 1681. 175 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–9, 18. 8. 1681, s. d. 1682. 176 Prav tam, šk. 171, fasc. 97a, lit. G VIII–8, 13. 4. 1686. 177 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 128. Kranjska je znala širjenje okuženosti tudi tokrat uspešno zajeziti, saj je imela za seboj koristne izku- šnje iz nedavne štajerske kuge. Tako so črnomaljsko območje nemudoma izolirali od ostale Kranjske ter na prehodih proti Hrvaški in ponekod v notranjo- sti postavili stalne kužne straže. Promet potnikov in blaga s celotno Kranjsko sta ustavili tudi Goriška in Beneška republika,178 čeprav sta imeli do Črnomlja in Hrvaške razmeroma daleč, za sanitarni kordon pa Kranjsko. V Gorici so se namreč še dobro spominjali usodnih posledic pomanjkljive budnosti leta 1682. Do pojava kuge v Črnomlju in okolici je nespor- no prišlo tako, da so epidemijo zanesli iz okoliških hrvaških krajev, kjer je v tem času razsajala v Karlov- cu. Od tam so prihajala sicer protislovna poročila o sami naravi bolezni; enkrat naj bi bila epidemija pra- va kuga, drugič pa samo legar.179 Za kakšno obliko bolezni je šlo v Črnomlju in okolici, prav tako ni ja- sno izpričano. Seznam ozdravelih deli bolnike na dve kategoriji: na tiste s karbunklji (carbuneli) in one z nevarnejšimi buboni (bubones), pri nekaterih pa je šlo očitno za oba pojava hkrati.180 Črnomaljska kužna epidemija je hkrati prva in zadnja, o kateri poznamo razne podrobnosti, sanacijske ukrepe, odmeve v oko- lici in tudi natančno specifikacijo obolelih in umrlih, o čemer kaže zato spregovoriti nekoliko obširneje. Sámo dogajanje v mestu in okolici je v času iz- bruha bolezni in njenega vrhunca slabo dokumenti- rano. Poročila se namnožijo šele ob zatonu kuge in zlasti naslednje tedne v zvezi s sanacijskimi ukrepi. Tako ne vemo niti, kdaj natanko je bolezen izbruh- nila in kdaj doživela vrhunec. Vsekakor je bilo to naj- pozneje decembra 1691, verjetno pa že kakšen mesec prej. Novembra je denimo že popustila epidemija v hrvaškem Plaškem, kjer je zadnji bolnik umrl 12. de- cembra. Novomeški zdravnik dr. Janez Krstnik No- vak, ki je tam opravil svojo nalogo, je o zadevi malo zatem poročal kranjskim stanovom z gradu Pobrežje ob Kolpi. Pri tem je zatrjeval, da v Gradacu, na Me- tliškem in v deželskem sodišču Pobrežje ni razsajala kuga (alda khein Pest gewesen), čeprav so med njego- vimi maloštevilnimi bolniki nekateri res umrli, tako žena in sin barona Gusiča, kaplan ter neko turško dekle (vojni plen), ki je preminilo prvo. V času poro- čanja je skrbel le še za tri paciente, medtem ko naj bi bili vsi ljudje v gradu Gradac in zunaj njega ter v Po- brežju povsem zdravi, zato je prosil, da ga odpustijo brez nadaljnje karantene.181 178 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 548, fasc. 311, pag. 305–306, 21. 1. 1692. 179 Prav tam, pag. 361, 31. 1. 1692. 180 Prav tam, pag. 593–595, ad 25. 2. 1692. – Na kombiniranem sumarno-poimenskem seznamu je 27 oseb s karbunklji in 80 z buboni, kar skupaj znaša 107 ozdravljenih oseb, vendar je na koncu seznama naveden seštevek samo 87 oseb. 20 ljudi je torej očitno imeli oboje simptome. 181 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 549, fasc. 311, pag. 1721–1722, s. d. (po 12. 12. 1691). 64 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 Stanovski poverjeniki njegovi prošnji kajpak niso ustregli, saj sta v tem času doživela pravo kugo Čr- nomelj in njegova okolica. Za kužnega komisarja so deželne oblasti imenovale barona Janeza Sigmunda Geymana, komendnika metliško-črnomaljske ko- mende, ki se je zadrževal v Metliki in od tam ob- časno hodil v okuženi Črnomelj na oglede. Črno- maljsko mesto so tako kot okužene vasi stražile v ta namen poslane vojaške straže, na kužnem območju pa sta delovala zdravnik in ranocelnik – kirurg, ki sta stanovala pri komisarju v metliški komendi.182 Strogi varnostni ukrepi zoper širjenje bolezni so se pri tem kmalu pokazali kot neživljenjski, čeprav za varnost dežele vsekakor potrebni. Kužni komisar in zdrav- nik Andrej Koppeniager sta imela nenehne težave s Črnomaljci, ker niso hoteli upoštevati prepovedi pre- hajanja v mesto in iz njega. Ko sta pozimi zamrznili rečici Lahinja in Dobličica, ki s treh strani obdaja- ta mesto, in je bilo iz njega mogoče zlahka uhajati čez vodo, so morale straže ponoči patruljirati vzdolž 182 Prav tam, šk. 548, fasc. 311, pag. 317, 21. 1. 1692. vode. Po besedah kužnega komisarja komendnika Geymana pa so bili stražarji »slabi ljudje«, ki so držali z »uporniškimi Črnomaljci«, zaradi česar je komisar celo pretepel njihovega korporala.183 Na Geymanov ukaz sta doktor Koppeniager in ranocelnik Janez Jakob Ubec pozaprla hujskače »zagrešenih zločinov opozicije«, ko pa sta jih nekaj izpustila iz zapora, so se ponoči skrivaj izmuznili mimo straž in obiskali svoje vinograde v okuženih vaseh. Nazaj grede v me- sto so s streljanjem pregnali tudi stražo pri Rožancu, ki jih je med potjo zalotila in hotela ustaviti.184 Vse to se je dogajalo zadnje dni leta 1691 ali prve dni naslednjega leta, ko kuga ni imela več prave moči in so Črnomaljci že laže zadihali. Med silve- strovim in sv. Tremi kralji je v predmestju oziroma v mestnem lazaretu umrlo le še pet ljudi in v vasi Tušev Dol eden.185 Zadnja črnomaljska žrtev kuge, neka stara ženska, je preminila 11. januarja 1692, 183 Prav tam, pag. 47–49, 6. 1. 1692. 184 Prav tam, pag. 235, 3. 1. 1692. 185 Prav tam, pag. 239–240, 6. 1. 1692. Črnomelj po Valvasorju desetletje pred kugo 1691; sredi mesta stoji župnijska cerkev sv. Petra in Pavla s pokopališčem, kjer so pokopavali kužne mrliče. 65 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 nakar ni nihče umrl ali na novo zbolel, tako da je bilo deset dni pozneje v vseh okuženih krajih le še 9 bolnih oseb, od tega 4 v črnomaljskem predmestju. Komisar Geyman je zdaj stal predvsem pred nalogo, kako obleči približno sto ozdravelih bolnikov, kate- rih stara oblačila in predmete so iz varnostnih razlo- gov skupaj z imetjem umrlih sežigali. Deželni stano- vi so komisarju obljubili pomoč v obliki sredstev za nakup blaga za izdelavo novih oblačil, pri čemer je upravitelj gospostva Poljane ob Kolpi skušal spretno izkoristiti stisko, saj je komendniku ponujal sukno in platno po občutno previsoki ceni.186 Deželni sta- novi so Geymanu za obleke revnih ljudi namenili 300 goldinarjev nemške veljave, ga pozvali, naj kupi blago po čim ugodnejši ceni, premožnejše meščane in podložnike pa napotili, da si priskrbijo obleko na lastne stroške.187 Ko se je kužni komisar 1. februarja vnovič mudil v Črnomlju, je kljub mrazu ukazal vi- soko nasuti grobove, da ne bo iz njih čutiti smradu in da se izognejo nadaljnjemu kužnemu zlu. Vsi bolni so medtem ozdraveli, zato je deželnim stanovom po- ročal, da potrebuje novo obleko 91 ozdravelih oseb, ki nimajo prav nobenih sredstev in jih poimensko navaja zdravnikov seznam. Toda ker so bili prehodi v druge dele dežele zaprti, je ob naraščajoči draginji nastalo pomanjkanje tega in onega artikla. Po pred- računu – 6 goldinarjev in 15 krajcarjev za celotno oblačilo na osebo – bi lahko iz 300 goldinarjev oble- kli samo 48 ljudi, medtem ko je zmanjkalo sredstev za preostalih 43 revnih oseb. Mednje komisar ni vštel tistih, ki so si lahko obleko kupili sami, zato pa družinske člane obolelih, čeprav so ostali zdravi v okuženih hišah. Deželne stanove je končno pro- sil, naj ukažejo takojšnji začetek karantene, da se po njenem koncu čimprej odprejo prehodi, saj zaradi njihovega zaprtja trpi škodo vsa dežela.188 Po treh dneh so deželne oblasti 7. februarja spo- ročile, da nimajo pomislekov glede začetka karante- ne, ki naj traja 40 dni, nakar bodo glede na razmere odločile, ali se prehodi odprejo ali pa se določi še ena krajša karantena. Medtem naj kužni komisar kupi sukno in platno za obleko vseh 91 ljudi ter predloži specifikacijo, na podlagi katere bo dobil povrnjena sredstva iz urada deželnega glavnega prejemnika.189 Kužni komisar je imel tiste dni polne roke dela. Dva do trikrat na teden je jahal v Črnomelj, poskrbel za izdelavo obleke, ukazal izprazniti vse okužene hiše in jih nekajkrat dnevno pokaditi ter visoko zasuti kuž- ne grobove.190 Mesec dni pozneje, 3. marca 1692, je deželni vicedom že lahko poročal vladi v Gradec, da so oboleli prestali prvo od treh predpisanih karanten. Druga nastopi 10. marca in za njo še tretja, najkrajša. 186 Prav tam, pag. 315–316, 21. 1. 1692. 187 Prav tam, pag. 330, 23. 1. 1692. 188 Prav tam, pag. 381–384, 4. 2. 1692; pag. 387–390, Specifica- tion etc. 189 Prav tam, pag. 407–410, 7. 2. 1692. 190 Prav tam, pag. 523–527, 11. 2. 1692. Po koncu prve karantene so stara oblačila vpričo kuž- nega komisarja zažgali, bolnike pa s pomočjo dežel- nih stanov na novo oblekli. Skupno grobišče so med- tem zasuli višje od okolice, in ga zavarovali z visokimi deskami, da z njim ne bi prišli v stik ljudje in živali. Zaradi bližajoče se pomladi, ko se zemlja začne od- pirati, ga bo treba še na debelo posuti z apnom.191 Konec marca so v ta namen začeli postavljati poseb- no apnenico, v kateri so žgali prepotrebno apno, ki je moralo biti še sveže žgano posuto po grobovih.192 Toda šlo je za dve vrsti grobov in dve lokaciji po- kopavanja, od katerih je ona na pokopališču pri žup- nijski cerkvi sredi mesta povzročala preglavice tudi pozneje. Komendnik metliško-črnomaljske križniške komende baron Geyman se je s Črnomaljci zapletel v spor zaradi pokopavanja še leto dni po odložitvi mandata kužnega komisarja. Meščanom je namreč odrekel pokope pri župnijski cerkvi sv. Petra in Pa- vla v mestu, ker so med kugo tam pokopavali umr- le. V nedatirani pritožbi deželnemu komendniku v Ljubljani so Črnomaljci kugo imenovali zgolj »do- mnevna kužna bolezen« (in der vermeindten contagion khrankheit) in navedli, da so na pokopališču pokopali samo 12 otrok, vse ostale umrle pa na ločenem kra- ju zunaj mesta, čeprav naj bi v Karlovcu in drugod pokopavali kar na pokopališčih. Bili so prepričani, da jim hoče komendnik samo nagajati, češ da jim je že prej povzročal škodo in jim s pravdanjem nakopal visoke stroške. Na to je komendnik Geyman poro- čal deželnemu komendniku, da je v Črnomlju morila prava kuga (würkliche pest) in da so pri župnijski cer- kvi v resnici pokopali več kot 30 ljudi. Za pokopava- nje je zato meščanom določil podružnico sv. Marije v Vojni vasi, čemur pa so se uprli in samovoljno še naprej pokopavali v mestu. Vse tri deželne oblasti – deželni glavar, vicedom in poverjeniški urad deželnih stanov – so na komendnikov odgovor dva dni pozne- je odgovorile z ukazom črnomaljskemu mestnemu sodniku in svetu, naj za pokope vendar uporabljajo pokopališče v Vojni vasi, ki leži prav na mestni meji. S kopanjem novih grobov pri župnijski cerkvi bi na- mreč lahko naleteli na trupla umrlih za kugo, kar bi ogrozilo varnost vse dežele.193 Črnomaljci so se mo- rali ukazu nedvomno ukloniti, v veljavi pa je ostal le določen čas, dokler se je bilo pač bati vnovičnega iz- bruha epidemije. Pozneje so namreč vse do leta 1802 spet pokopavali pri župnijski cerkvi sredi mesta.194 Nič manj strogi niso bili preventivni ukrepi, za- devajoči žive ljudi. Ko niti s Hrvaškega ni bilo več slišati ničesar o kugi, je komendnik Geyman 10. marca 1692 prosil deželne stanove, naj odpokliče- jo zdravnika Koppeniagerja, padarja in 13 kužnih 191 Prav tam, šk. 687, fasc. 393, 3. 3. 1692. 192 Prav tam, šk. 548, fasc. 311, 24. 3. 1692. 193 Prav tam, šk. 550, fasc. 311a, str. 691–704, 17. 5. 1693, 19. 5. 1693, s. d. 194 Podlogar, Kronika mesta Črnomlja, str. 68. 66 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 stražnikov.195 Stanovski poverjeniki so mu že čez dva dni, neposredno po prejetju dopisa, ukazali, naj za stražnike poišče primerno bivališče pri Semiču, kjer morajo preživeti še dodatno 14-dnevno karanteno. Kužnemu komisarju so določili za karanteno njego- vo siceršnje domovanje – komendo v Metliki, kjer sta mu naslednja dva tedna delala družbo tudi zdravnik in padar. Hkrati so mu sporočili, da so zaradi uga- snitve kuge v Karlovcu umaknili mejne straže pro- ti Hrvaški in ponovno odprli prehode.196 V samem Črnomlju je medtem še vedno veljala karantena, kar v spremenjenih razmerah kajpak ni bilo prav nič prijetno. Komendnik je zato 16. marca 1692 prosil v imenu Črnomaljcev, naj se jim dovoli opravljanje spomladanskih del na poljih in v vinogradih. Stanovi so v to privolili, vendar s pridržkom, da sicer smejo tudi trgovati s sosedi na domačih črnomaljskih tleh, ni pa jim dovoljeno zapuščati območja. Na vnovično Geymanovo prošnjo, naj se jim omogoči nemote- no gibanje, saj večinoma živijo od lončarstva in to- vorništva, hrane pa jim bo zmanjkalo prej kot v 14 dneh, so stanovi 27. marca odgovorili, da se prehodi proti Črnomlju in Karlovcu lahko odprejo čez osem dni.197 To se je 9. aprila končno tudi zgodilo. Hkrati je komendnik pri stanovskih poverjenikih izprosil, da smejo metliško karanteno zapustiti dr. Koppeniager, padar in novomeški zdravnik dr. Novak,198 ki se je slednjima pridružil, potem ko je bil sprva v karanteni na gradu Pobrežje.199 Ostaja nam še poglavitno vprašanje naše obrav- nave, demografske posledice črnomaljske kuge. Ko se ne bi ohranil seznam umrlih in bi bili odvisni zgolj od zgornjih dveh navedb o 12 oziroma več kot 30 pri župnijski cerkvi pokopanih Črnomaljcih, bi lahko sklenili, da vseh žrtev kuge v tem belokranjskem me- 195 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 548, fasc. 311, pag. 647–648, 675–678, 10. 3. 1692. 196 Prav tam, pag. 679, 12. 3. 1692. 197 Prav tam, pag. 683–686; 20. 3. 1692; pag. 691–692, 24. 3. 1692; pag. 739–740, 27. 3. 1692. 198 Prav tam, pag. 769–770, 31. 3. 1692, 7. 4. 1692, 9. 4. 1692. 199 Prav tam, pag. 331, 23. 1. 1692, pag. 371–372, 31. 1. 1692. stu ni moglo biti dosti več kot 30. Dejansko pa je bilo njihovo število kar nekajkrat višje in trimestno. Po seznamu žrtev kuge (in der Laidigen Contagion abge- storbenen), ki ga je deželnim stanovom 25. februarja 1692 poslal kužni komisar komendnik Geyman, je na črnomaljskih tleh – v mestu, predmestju in sed- mih vaseh, večinoma zahodno od Črnomlja – pomr- lo kar 252 ljudi, od tega v črnomaljskem mestu in predmestju dobra polovica – 139 ali 55,2 %.200 Seznam umrlih oseb na črnomaljskih tleh povze- ma naslednja preglednica, v kateri smo mrtve razde- lili na moške, ženske in otroke. Med skupnimi žrtva- mi izstopa zlasti visok delež odraslih Črnomaljcev. Ta ni toliko opazen pri umrlih moških, ki jih je bilo v mestu in predmestju 23,7 %, v sedmih vaseh pa 20,4 % vseh tamkajšnjih umrlih. Veliko večje razlike se kažejo pri ženskah in otrocih. Če je med vaščan- kami delež žensk znašal dobro petino (22,1 %), je bil med Črnomaljkami višji od ene tretjine (33,8 %). Razlika v umiranju odrasle in otroške populacije se pokaže zlasti pri naslednjem razmerju: po vaseh so otroci predstavljali kar 57,5 % vseh žrtev, v mestu in predmestju pa le 42,4 %. Zanimiva je ugotovitev, da so med mestom in predmestjem razlike v odstotkih nebistvene. V ožjem mestu so denimo odrasli pred- stavljali 55,3 % vseh umrlih, v predmestju zunaj ob- zidja pa 58,7 %. Naslednja ugotovitev, pomembna tudi za preso- janje demografskih posledic drugod, zadeva število povsem izumrlih hiš. V seznamu je izrecno označe- nih šest takih hiš (das haus ganz ausgestorben oziroma völlig abgestorben), od tega tri v predmestju in tri v dveh okoliških vaseh, kar dokaj ustreza proporcio- nalni delitvi umrlih med Črnomljem in podeželjem. Glede na število vseh hiš, iz katerih so odnesli kužne mrliče (57), je torej presenetljivo malo hiš izgubilo vse prebivalce. Delež izumrlih hiš med vsemi hišami 200 Prav tam, pag. 585–588, 25. 2. 1692; pag. 589–592, ad 25. 2. 1692, Verzaichnuß der in der Laidigen Contagion abgestor- benen. Popis vseh umrlih na črnomaljskih tleh Kraj Skupaj umrlih Umrlih moških Umrlih žensk Umrlih otrok Družine z umrlimi člani Povsem izumrle hiše Mesto Črnomelj 47 10 16 21 21 0 Predmestje Črnomlja 92 23 31 38 36 3 Skupaj Črnomelj 139 33 47 59 57 3 Tušev Dol 37 6 7 24 11 2 Talčji Vrh 32 9 7 16 9 0 Otovec 24 5 7 12 7 1 Naklo pri Sv. Jakobu 5 1 1 3 1 0 Sela 6 1 1 4 1 0 Svibnik 4 0 1 3 1 0 Butoraj 5 1 1 3 1 0 Skupaj 252 56 72 124 88 6 67 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 Seznam za kugo umrlih Črnomaljcev z dne 25. 2. 1692. 68 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 z mrliči znaša v Črnomlju namreč komaj 5,2 %, delež umrlih v teh hišah (10) pa le malo več (7,2 %). Tri izumrle predmestne hiše poleg tega tudi niso štele veliko prebivalcev, in sicer največ štiri. Izumrla dru- žina Rupe je izgubila zakonski par in mater enega od zakoncev, v družini Babner so umrli mož, žena in otrok, štiričlanska družina Jakša pa je dala zakonski par z dvema otrokoma. Delež izumrlih hiš med vse- mi hišami, ki so imele mrtve, je tudi na podeželju po- menljivo nizek. Takih domov je bilo 9,7 %, medtem ko predstavlja 15 njihovih prebivalcev 13,3 % vseh podeželskih žrtev. Kuga torej še zdaleč ni bila selektivna morilka, ki bi z matematično natančnostjo pomorila določene družine, druge pa pustila nedotaknjene. Nasprot- no, okužila je veliko več domov, kot pa jih je zaradi epidemije na koncu ostalo praznih. Kot je razvidno iz naslednje tabele, je v skoraj dveh tretjinah hiš (64,9 %), v katerih so popisali mrliče, umrla samo ena ali dve osebi. Dobra tretjina hiš (36,8 %) je dala sploh samo enega umrlega in le dobra desetina (10,5 %) pet ali več kužnih mrličev, ne da bi katera od teh povsem izumrla. V eni od hiš s šestimi umrlimi so sicer preminili starši in štirje otroci, v drugi zakonski par s tremi otroki in hlapcem, medtem ko je šlo pri hiši z najvišjim številom mrličev (10) za razširjeno družino Jurija Črnugla, ki je v register umrlih vpisa- la gospodarja, njegove tri sinove, dve ženski in štiri otroke. Razsežnosti črnomaljske kuge nazorno prikazu- jeta še dva seznama. Prvi, nastal 4. februarja 1692, popisuje ozdravele po spolu, drugi, dokončni, sestav- ljen 25. februarja, pa glede na bolezenske simptome – karbunklje oziroma bubone.201 Kot vse kaže, nista popolna ne prvi ne drugi, saj se v drugem pojavlja le manjši del imen iz prvega in obrnjeno. Taka ugoto- 201 Prav tam, pag. 387–390, ad 4. 2. 1692; pag. 593–596, ad 25. 2. 1692. Umrli v Črnomlju Število umrlih oseb/ število družin 1 oseba 2 osebi 3 osebe 4 osebe 5 oseb 6 oseb 10 oseb Mesto Črnomelj 8 8 1 1 2 1 Predmestje Črnomlja 13 8 6 6 1 1 1 Skupaj Črnomelj 21 (36,8 %) 16 (28,1 %) 7 (12,3 %) 7 (12,3 %) 3 (5,3 %) 2 (3,5 %) 1 (1,8 %) Ozdraveli po seznamu z dne 4. 2. 1692 Kraj Skupaj ozdravelih Ozdravelih moških Ozdravelih žensk Ozdravelih otrok Število hiš z ozdravelimi Mesto Črnomelj 3 0 3 0 2 Predmestje Črnomlja 43 15 18 10 21 Skupaj Črnomelj 46 15 21 10 23 Pri Sv. Nikolaju 2 2 0 0 2 Tušev Dol 16 3 7 6 8 Talčji Vrh 15 3 7 5 8 Otovec 8 1 2 5 8 Sela 1 0 0 1 1 Svibnik 3 1 1 1 1 Butoraj 1 0 0 1 1 Skupaj 92 25 38 29 52 Število ozdravelih po seznamu 25. 2. 1692 Seštevek ozdravelih z obeh seznamov Kraj ozdraveli s karbunklji ozdraveli z buboni skupaj ozdravelih oseb število družin z ozdravelimi člani Mesto Črnomelj – – 3 2 Pri mestu Črnomelj 13 38 74 38 Skupaj Črnomelj 13 38 77 40 Tušev Dol 6 18 33 12 Talčji Vrh 6 15 19 11 Otovec 2 4 9 10 Sela 0 1 2 2 Svibnik 0 2 2 1 Butoraj 0 2 4 2 Skupaj 27 80 146 78 69 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 vitev je narekovala natančno analizo osebnih imen in priimkov, pri čemer naletimo še na eno težavo: pri vsaki družini je s polnim imenom praviloma nave- dena le ena oseba. Drugi družinski člani so v prvem seznamu označeni zgolj kot otroci, ženske, sinovi, hlapci itd., v mlajšem popisu pa je navedeno sploh samo njihovo skupno število. Končni seznam, ki ga je kužni komisar baron Geyman poslal deželnim oblastem 25. februarja 1692, deli ozdravele glede na bolezenske simptome. Poleg tega ne razlikuje med mestom in predmestjem, temveč ju združuje pod skupnim imenom »Bey der Statt Tschernembl«. V naslednji preglednici zato na levi strani predstavljamo številčne podatke mlajšega seznama, na desni pa združujemo število ozdravelih iz obeh seznamov, pri čemer je bilo treba odšteti tiste osebe oziroma družine, ki se pojavljajo v obeh popi- sih. Tako smo prišli do precej višjega števila umrlih Črnomaljcev (77), kot ga ponuja prvi od obeh popi- sov (46). Pri tem pa končnega seštevka ni moč raz- deliti na mesto in predmestje zaradi njunega nerazli- kovanja v zadnjem seznamu. V podanih številkah so zajete vse razsežnosti epi- demije. 146 ozdravelih v mestu, predmestju in sed- mih vaseh predstavlja glede na 252 umrlih zgovorno nizek delež komaj dobre tretjine (36,7 %) skupaj 398 obolelih. Dva od treh okuženih sta bila torej zapisana gotovi smrti. S kakšnimi bolezenskimi znaki so ljudje umirali, ostaja neodgovorjeno vprašanje, medtem ko je vsaj za večji del ozdravelih znano, pri kom je zdrav- nik ugotovil bubone (13 oseb), simptome bubonske kuge, in pri kom karbunklje (38 ljudi). Za črnomalj- sko mesto in predmestje znaša število vseh umrlih in ozdravelih 216, od katerih predstavlja 77 preži- velih bolnikov skoraj natanko enak delež okuženih (35,6 %) kot za celotno območje. Končno kaže še ugotoviti, koliko črnomaljskih družin je kuga prizadela oziroma, povedano drugače, koliko družin je imelo v času kuge bolnike ali umrle ter kolikšen delež celotnega prebivalstva je odpadel na okužene. Rezultati primerjave vseh treh seznamov so razumljivo nekoliko relativni, saj družin ni mogo- če kompletirati zgolj po enakem priimku. Takih pri- merov, kjer iz priimka in lokacije (mesto, predmestje) sklepamo, da je šlo za isto družino, je skupaj 20. V največ toliko družinah je del družinskih članov umrl, del pa ozdravel. Tako lahko ugotovimo, da je kuga obiskala najmanj 77 družin oziroma hiš, a dejansko raje kakšno več, vendar zanesljivo ne več kot 97. V 57 družinah so namreč našteli mrliče, v 40 družinah ozdravele osebe, pri čemer je šlo v največ 20 primerih za isto družino. Kot rečeno, za Črnomelj vse do srede 18. sto- letja nimamo nikakršnega popisa hiš ali hišnih go- spodarjev, na podlagi katerega bi lahko izračunali tudi potencialno število celotnega prebivalstva. Te- rezijanski kataster iz leta 1752 specificira skupaj z gradom 104 hiše, in sicer 74 v samem mestu ter 30 v predmestju,202 kar pri količniku 5,5 oseb na hišo znaša okoli 572 prebivalcev. Vendar pa je Črnomelj, tako kot vsa dolenjska mesta, premogel v preteklosti več naseljenih hiš in več ljudi. Leta 1744 je mestno predstojništvo za čas pred nedavnim požarom (1740) specificiralo 117 domov in poudarilo, da so mnoge hiše v predmestju za vedno izginile zlasti zaradi po- žarov med 1660 in 1730.203 Pri preverjanju poveda- nega se je mogoče opreti samo na pavšalno navedbo vicedomske komisije iz leta 1573, češ da je v mestu okoli 100 hiš, neupoštevaje tiste, ki pripadajo plemi- čem in deželanom.204 180 let pozneje, leta 1752, je bilo mestu pomenljivo podsodnih le 80 hiš, od tega 50 v mestu in vseh 30 v predmestju.205 Za čas tik pred kugo v letih 1691–1692 moramo tako v primerjavi s sredo 18. stoletja računati z več hišami in z gostejšo poseljenostjo, še posebej zunaj mestnega obzidja. Zgovorno je že dejstvo, da je bilo leta 1752 v predmestju samo 30 hiš, seznam za kugo umrlih pa tu popisuje mrliče iz 36 družin in ozdrave- le iz 38 hiš, kar po analizi imen navrže približno 46 prizadetih domov. Če vzamemo, da je pred kugo šte- vilo vseh naseljenih domov znašalo vsaj 117, kolikor naj bi jih bilo pred letom 1740, je Črnomelj leta 1691 premogel kakih 650 prebivalcev. 216 okuženih oseb bi tako predstavljalo približno tretjino vsega prebi- valstva, 139 umrlih dobro petino, najmanj 77 okuže- nih hiš pa skoraj dve tretjini obstoječih domov. 57 hiš z mrliči prav tako vodi k srhljivi ugotovitvi, da je smrt pogledala v vsako drugo črnomaljsko hišo. V samem mestu, kjer je kosila v 21 družinah, je zdesetkala ne- kako četrtino hiš, medtem ko v predmestju praktično ni bilo hiše brez mrliča. Za primerjavo lahko nave- demo 487 mrličev v Gorici med kugo leta 1682, kar je glede na 3500 do 4000 mestnih prebivalcev pred- stavljalo le kakšno osmino celotnega življa.206 Sodobne specifikacije torej nedvoumno pričajo, da kuga v Črnomlju še zdaleč ni bila nedolžna. V tej luči je treba presojati tudi pol stoletja mlajši lapidarni opis epidemije izpod peresa mestnega predstojništva. Črnomaljski mestni očetje, ki so leta 1744 v poročilu vicedomu pojasnjevali razloge opustelosti in revščine svojega mesta, so med drugim zapisali, da se vice- dom gotovo spominja, kako je mesto leta 1691 zaradi 202 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 243, No. 6, 10. 8. 1752. 203 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–4, s. d. (Berichts copia); lit. T II–5, 22. 5. 1744, s. d. (1744, Specification). – V predmestju je obstajalo 21 nase- ljenih hiš, od požara leta 1740 je znotraj obzidja ostalo 15 pustot, 7 stavbišč je bilo pustih že okoli petdeset let, v pred- mestju pa so našteli 16 pogorišč in pustot. 204 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–4, Berichts copia. – Ukaz o komisiji je nadvojvoda Karel izdal 13. oktobra 1573 (StLA, I.Ö. HK-Rep. 1573, fol. 411). 205 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 243, No. 6, 10. 8. 1752. 206 Jelinčič, Črna smrt v Gorici, str. 119. Prim. Waltritsch, Prvi goriški kronist, str. 194 sl. 70 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 kuge povsem izumrlo (ganz abgestorben) in opustelo (verwiestet).207 Črnomaljski kugi na rob, tej zadnji moriji na Kranjskem v 17. stoletju, naj končno namenimo ne- kaj besed še dogajanju v okolici, ki je bila posredno močno prizadeta zaradi protikužnih ukrepov. Deže- la je živela v strahu, gibanje ljudi in blaga so omejili s prepovedmi, kranjske meje pa zaprli in zastražili. V krajih, kjer niso neposredno občutili divjanja epi- demije, so se tako kot že v času prejšnjih kug toli- ko bolj zoperstavljali neživljenjskim, gospodarstvu škodljivim omejitvam. Tako so Novomeščani navzlic prepovedi imeli letni sejem, na katerega so dovolili vstop tudi sumljivim Hrvatom brez zdravstvenega potrdila. Ko je za to izvedela notranjeavstrijska vlada v Gradcu, je 3. septembra 1691 od kranjskega vice- doma zahtevala, naj takoj odstavi mestnega sodnika in izvede nove predčasne volitve. To bi se gotovo tudi zgodilo, če ne bi bile redne sodniške volitve ravno pred vrati. Takratnega mestnega sodnika je očitno prav neposlušnost stala vnovične izvolitve, saj so No- vomeščani za svojega predstojnika izbrali drugega someščana.208 Novomeška in širša dolenjska okolica sta tudi si- cer zaradi omejitev gibanja blaga in ljudi doživeli kar nekaj izgredov. Januarja 1692 so stražniki pri Čatežu zaplenili voz medu, last ljubljanskega trgovca Ederja, saj vozniki niso imeli »fede«, domnevno pa so priha- jali s Hrvaškega. Podobno so zasegli volovski tovor kož, usnjenih podplatov, slanine in svinjskega mesa, ki sta ga s Hrvaškega tovorila dva Ribničana. Zaple- njeno blago je bilo v vasi Mraševo sežgano, medtem ko sta se Ribničana rešila z begom v hribe.209 Stanov- ski poverjeniki so za njima poslali tiralico in ribni- škemu gospostvu ukazali, naj javno zagrozi s kaznijo vsakomur, ki bi hodil na Hrvaško in v druge okuže- ne kraje.210 Nekako v istem času so čateški stražniki onemogočili prehod nekaj osebam, ki so bile v stiku z Uskoki (mit dennen Balachen) in so jih zato napotili nazaj »na Vlaško« (in die Balachey). Nekemu Uskoku (Besiakh), živečemu v goricah nad Kostanjevico, so zaplenili hišo in pred njo na njegove stroške namesti- li dva stražnika, ker je mož vzdrževal nenehne stike z Uskoki in jih na svojem domu tudi prenočeval. Na Gorjancih so sicer stale stalne straže, a je stražarjem sredi zime trda predla, saj zemljiška gospostva Kosta- njevica, Šrajbarski turn, Prežek in Pleterje niso dopu- stila postavitve stražarskih hišic in oskrbe z lesom,211 nakar so stanovi ostro pokarali gospoščinske upra- 207 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–5, 22. 5. 1744. 208 Prav tam, šk. 257, fasc. 133, lit. R III–1, 3. 9. 1691, 19. 11. 1691. 209 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 548, fasc. 311, pag. 309–310, 21. 1. 1692. 210 Prav tam, pag. 343–344, 23. 1. 1692. 211 Prav tam, pag. 310, 21. 1. 1692. vitelje.212 Še posebej pa jih je vznemirila vest o dveh možeh, ki jima je uspelo priti s Hrvaškega globoko na Kranjsko. Neki pek iz Siska je najprej pri Brežicah zaman poskušal legalno prestopiti štajersko-kranjsko mejo, nato pa naj bi prešel čez Savo pri Mokronogu in prispel v Kranj, kjer je imel hišo in družino. Nekdo drug, po imenu Bach, menda z ribniškega konca, je v hrvaškem Klanjcu kupil konje in prišel na Kranj- sko po stranpoteh.213 Deželni stanovi so nato mestu Kranj in ribniškemu gospostvu ukazali preiskavo in aretacijo obeh mož, kar bo služilo kot svarilo drugim kršiteljem.214 Taki in podobni ukrepi so očitno v precejšnji meri tudi zalegli. Če so Novomeščani denimo prejšnje po- letje še smelo kršili prepoved sejma, so postali zdaj previdnejši kot kdajkoli. Tako 26. februarja 1692, ko je bilo črnomaljske kuge že dolgo konec, niso hoteli spustiti v svoje mesto trgovskega pomočnika, zapo- slenega pri novomeškem trgovcu Jakšetu.215 Fant jim je sicer pokazal »fede«, izdano dva dni prej v Metliki, ki spričuje, da se je tam (po sili razmer) zadrževal tri mesece in da mu je odhod dovolil višji kužni ko- misar.216 Novomeško mestno predstojništvo je bilo kljub temu neizprosno, nakar je zavrnjeni izprosil podpis pri komisarju Mordaxu in mu je brez védenja mestnih očetov uspelo priti v mesto. Enako je brez ustreznega »fede« storil tudi metliški izstavitelj nje- govega zdravstvenega spričevala s še nekim drugim novomeškim meščanom.217 Novomeščani so se za- tegadelj pritožili pri stanovskih poverjenikih, ki so jih pomirili, da ni več nevarnosti, saj se bodo prav kmalu odprle deželne meje s Hrvaško. In vendar so mestnega sodnika in svet hkrati pozvali, naj se me- ščani do izdaje ustreznega dovoljenja izogibajo stikov s Hrvati.218 Zadnji udarci kužnih epidemij v začetku 18. stoletja Osemnajsto stoletje je bilo zadnje, ko je kuga obiskala slovenske dežele. Najhuje je divjala v letih 1711–1716, medtem ko se je pozneje pojavila le iz- jemoma zdaj tu zdaj tam, predvsem pa še desetletja povzročala strah, ker je pogosto divjala v sosednjih deželah na vzhodu in jugovzhodu tik do slovenske etnične meje. Ko so denimo v začetku leta 1701 za- nesli kugo iz evropske Turčije na Hrvaško v Gra- diško, so morali na Kranjskem preventivno zapreti meje in prepovedati vse sejme. Najbolj ogrožena je bila ponovno mejna Bela krajina, kjer so se še dobro spominjali kužne morije pred desetimi leti. Kranjski 212 Prav tam, pag. 345–346, 23. 1. 1692. 213 Prav tam, pag. 311, 21. 1. 1692. 214 Prav tam, pag. 341–342, 23. 1. 1692. 215 Prav tam, pag. 611, 26. 2. 1692. 216 Prav tam, pag. 579, 24. 2. 1692. 217 Prav tam, pag. 611, 26. 2. 1692. 218 Prav tam, pag. 641–644, 28. 2. 1692. 71 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 deželni stanovi so »za metliška in črnomaljska tla« imenovali kužnega komisarja Franca Karla pl. Gusi- ča, ki je z okrepljenimi stražami na Kolpi preprečeval, da bi bolezen s Hrvaškega prestopila deželne mejo.219 Strah pred okužbo ni bil majhen, kot vselej ob podobni nevarnosti pa so ga še stopnjevala tako ali drugače pogojena lažna poročila. Vse tri deželne oblasti, deželni glavar, vicedom in stanovski poverje- niški urad, so denimo 2. aprila 1701 ukazale sodniku in mestnemu svetu Novega mesta, naj za 14 dni ne- mudoma zapreta v mestni stolp nekega Strupija, ki naj bi kot tamkajšnji someščan kršil prepoved preha- janja na Hrvaško. Mestne oblasti so bile deležne gra- je, ker so mu dovolile, da se je vrnil v mesto, potem ko je potoval skozi Karlovac v Zagreb na sejem in po isti poti nazaj. Strupi je nato iz zapora naslovil pismeno prošnjo na deželne oblasti, naj ga ukažejo izpustiti in mu dovolijo vrnitev v Karlovac, saj sploh ni meščan Novega mesta, temveč karlovški trgovec. Z drugimi trgovci iz Karlovca je res potoval na zagrebški sejem, ne da bi jih na poti kdo ustavljal zaradi dovoljenja. Za prepoved prehajanja in straže menda sploh ni vedel, v Novo mesto pa je prišel samo na obisk k staršem. Neposredno zatem, 12. aprila, je deželni glavar vse straže odpravil, ker je kuga v Gradiški prenehala.220 Iz naslednjih let o epidemijah na Slovenskem ni poročil, čeprav so kuga, črne koze in druge nalezljive bolezni razsajale v mnogih evropskih deželah, pred- vsem na Balkanu, Ogrskem in Poljskem. Počasi, a ne- zadržno se je črna smrt medtem bližala osrčju Evro- pe. Na Slovenskem so bile v letih 1708–1716 njene oznanjevalke in zaveznice še številne naravne nesreče. Zlasti na Kranjskem so razsajale živinske bolezni, v vseh avstrijskih deželah pa več let črne koze.221 Leta 1710 je prišla črna smrt kar s treh strani tik do meja slovenskih dežel, in sicer z vzhoda, severa in juga. Okuženi so bili namreč mnogi kraji na Ogr- skem, Hrvaškem in Beneškem, zaradi česar je uka- zala vlada zapreti in zastražiti deželne meje. V vseh večjih krajih so morali magistrati urediti kontumačne hiše in lazarete. Tudi ko je graška vlada konec leta 1710 za preprečitev epidemije imenovala »kontagij- ski glavni deputaciji« v Gradcu in Celovcu, so ljudje kljub strogim ukrepom še naprej hodili na okužena območja, saj niso verjeli, da jim grozi prava (azijska) kuga, temveč le navadna vročinska bolezen. V prej- šnjih časih so namreč kužne epidemije ponavadi iz- bruhnile nenadoma in z vso silovitostjo, tokrat pa je prišla smrt v povsem drugačni obliki. Bolniki niso imeli izrazitih in splošno znanih kužnih znakov. Ti simptomi so se zdaj pojavili navadno šele po smrti in tudi umiranje ni bilo tako naglo kot prej, saj so oku- ženci umrli šele teden do dva po izbruhu bolezni.222 219 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 129. 220 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 687, fasc. 393, 3. 3. 1701, 2. 4. 1701. 221 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 129. 222 Prav tam, str. 130. Viri domače provenience o varnostnih ukrepih v dolenjskih mestih so za ta čas skopi. Krška kapucin- ska kronika iz leta 1757 omenja kugo na dveh me- stih. Leta 1709, ko je pustošila na Ogrskem, so pri mestnih vratih postavili straže, leta 1712 pa po uka- zu deželnih stanov nihče ni smel priti v Krško brez zdravstvenega spričevala. Tisto leto je namreč smrt kosila na Ogrskem in tudi po sosednjem Štajerskem, ki ga je od Krškega ločila samo Sava.223 Tri leta pozneje je Kranjska zadnjič videla epi- demijo, ki jo viri označujejo kot kugo leta 1715. Že v letih 1710–1712 je prišla z Ogrskega v Slovenske gorice in se dve leti do 1714 zadržala na Ptuju. Iz Spodnje Avstrije so jo nato v letih 1714 in 1715 za- nesli na Zgornje Štajersko in od tam v mariborsko in celjsko okolico. Poleti 1715 se je s Štajerskega razši- rila na Koroško, kjer je ostala do srede leta 1716, sredi leta 1715 pa je bila tudi že na Kranjskem. Varnostni ukrepi in razne prepovedi so v deželi trajali že dve leti, vse odkar se je začelo umiranje v sosednjih deže- lah. Kljub odredbam se je »kuga« spomladi 1715 po- javila na Dolenjskem, zlasti v okolici Stične, Novega mesta in Šentruperta, medtem ko so v Ljubljani že od novega leta razsajale vročinske bolezni.224 Sodobna poročila o povečani umrljivosti na Do- lenjskem so tudi tokrat nadvse skopa, vendar jih je mogoče neposredno potrditi s podatki iz mrliških matičnih knjig. Mnoge dolenjske župnije so zdaj že vodile mrliške matice, a se veliko knjig žal ni ohra- nilo. Vzrok smrti v njih v tej dobi praviloma še ni naveden, pa tudi sicer bi morali pod pojmom kuga ali epidemija, kot kaže ljubljanski primer, videti več različnih bolezni. Za mesta so na voljo samo podatki o umrlih v Višnji Gori, Kočevju in deloma v Novem mestu, od trgov pa sta z matičnimi knjigami doku- mentirana dva, Žužemberk in Litija. Preden se osredotočimo na matične knjige do- lenjskih župnij, si poglejmo dogajanje v Ljubljani in podatke iz tamkajšnjih matic. Kot vedno ni manj- kalo pretiravanj, ki so se z geografsko oddaljenostjo samo še povečevala. Cesarski dvor je denimo v maju 1715 spraševal kranjske deželne stanove, ali v Ljub- ljani resnično vsak dan umre 20–30 oseb in ali je res, da umirajo nenadno z buboni, tako da leži na ulicah in cestah veliko nepokopanih trupel.225 Ljubljanski zdravniki so na dezinformacije podali povsem dru- gačno poročilo. Večina obolelih, deležnih oskrbe, je namreč ozdravela, ni pa bilo moč oskrbeti vseh tistih kmečkih ljudi, ki jih je v mesto pregnala lakota. Dva ali največ trije so resnično omagali na ulici, vendar ne zaradi bolezni, temveč od lakote. Za pomoč revnim 223 Kapucinski samostan Krško, Archivum loci Ppff. capucino- rum Gurkfeldi erectum anno Domini MDCCLVII, pag. 45 in 47. – Prim. objavo: Benedik–Kralj, Kapucini na Slovenskem, str. 460, 462. 224 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 130–132. 225 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 688, fasc. 393, 13. 5. 1715. 72 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 je bil sicer urejen lazaret, kjer so za bolnike skrbeli zdravniki in padarji.226 Sedem zdravnikov je potrdilo, da od januarja razsajajo vročinske bolezni, pri čemer je večina obolelih, ki je dobila ustrezna zdravila, tudi ozdravela. Na srečo pri nobenem bolniku ni bilo za- znati bubonov, le pri redkih pa prave kužne mozo- lje. Prav tako ni šlo za nenadno umiranje, ampak je smrt zvečine nastopila šele po tednu ali celo dveh.227 Skupno se je v lazaretu znašlo približno 400 ljudi, od katerih jih je do srede maja umrlo 39. Zdravnik Janez Leopold Raditsch je še potrdil, da so bolezen- ski simptomi, izvzemši karbunklje in bubone, enaki onim, ki jih je sam v letih 1713–1714 videl pri bol- nikih na Dunaju in v Pragi. Zato je svetoval, naj na šentpeterskem pokopališču kopljejo globlje grobove in jih posipajo z apnom, da poleti ne pride do nevar- nega razpadanja trupel.228 Zgovorni priči umrljivosti v Ljubljani sta mrliški matici stolne župnije sv. Nikolaja in predmestne žup- nije sv. Petra. Glede na predhodno leto (1714), ko so v stolni župniji pokopali 124 ljudi, se je njihovo šte- vilo leta 1715 povzpelo za 71,7 % na 231, od katerih jih je 125 umrlo v mesecih od marca do junija, največ aprila (36) in maja (41).229 V predmestno-podežel- ski in teritorialno precej večji šentpeterski župniji se je množično umiranje začelo že jeseni 1714, kar je zagotovo posledica slabih letin in lakote. Če so leta 1713 vpisali v mrliško matico 339 pokopov, se je nji- hovo število naslednje leto dvignilo na 634, v kužnem letu 1715 pa je znašalo že 951 ali kar 2,8-krat več kot dve leti prej. Tako kot v ožjem mestu je zaznati vrhu- nec umiranja v mesecih april (134) in maj (201). Že marca 1714 se omenja smrt štirih vojakov v lazaretu (in lazareth), kjer so se smrti začele množično vrstiti od 28. aprila 1715. Največ umrlih v lazaretu je zabe- leženih v maju in juniju, pri čemer sta ime in priimek umrlega ob množici anonimnih smrti le izjema. Po- gosto je v enem dnevu preminilo pet oseb, 20. maja šest brez navedbe imena, 16. junija pa največ, in sicer sedem beračev. Zadnjega mrliča v lazaretu beleži mr- liška matica 5. septembra, skupaj v letu 1715 natanko 100 in od tega kar 57 označenih kot berači. Mimo teh so ljudje in še posebej berači množično umirali tudi zunaj lazareta, tako da so večkrat v enem dnevu zabeležili po osem pogrebov.230 Ljubljanske številke in poročila so ob pomanj- kanju poročil z Dolenjskega uporabno izhodišče za primerjave s številom umrlih, ki ga ponujajo mrli- ške matice petih dolenjskih župnij. Iz vseh matičnih knjig župnij Novo mesto-kapitelj, Višnja Gora, Ko- čevje, Žužemberk in Šmartno pri Litiji izhaja evi- 226 Prav tam, 20. 5. 1715. 227 Prav tam, 18. 5. 1715. 228 Prav tam, s. d., prezentirano 22. 5. 1715. 229 NŠAL, ŽA Ljubljana – Sv. Nikolaj, Matične knjige, M 1658–1735. 230 NŠAL, ŽA Ljubljana – Sv. Peter, Matične knjige, M 1690– 1736, M 1715–1743. dentno povečano umiranje. Najhuje je moralo biti v Novem mestu, kjer je bilo prebivalstvo tudi sicer najbolj zgoščeno, umrljivost pa največja tako po ab- solutnem številu kot po deležu umrlih v celotnem prebivalstvu župnije. V novomeški mestni župnijici, omejeni na prostor znotraj obzidja, naj bi po navedbi s prve strani najstarejše mrliške matične knjige samo leta 1715 umrlo in bilo pokopanih 331 oseb.231 Žal razpolagamo samo s tem sumarnim podatkom, ne pa z evidenco vseh pokopanih. Šele množično umiranje je namreč spodbudilo prošta Jurija Franca Ksaverja de Marottija, da je 5. julija ukazal svojim duhovni- kom, naj začnejo pisati mrliško matico in po natanč- no predpisanem obrazcu poimensko vpišejo vsakogar, ki umre na mestnih tleh in v okolici. Z vpisovanjem so pričeli že naslednji dan, vendar si vpisi zaradi vsaj enega manjkajočega lista kontinuirano sledijo šele od februarja 1716.232 Podatek o 331 pokopanih ni preverljiv, a je zelo verjeten. Kot pričajo mrliške ma- tice iz drugih župnij, je namreč glavni val umiranja prešel Dolenjsko že spomladi, popisanih (samo) 34 umrlih oseb pa pade šele v dva poletna meseca. Poleg tega je treba upoštevati, da vsi tu pokopani niso bili Novomeščani. Od skupnega visokega števila umrlih moramo odšteti delež tujcev, pri čemer gre analogno z Ljubljano računati zlasti s povečanim številom be- račev in vojakov, ki jih je bilo nadpovprečno veliko že med 34 umrlimi od julija do septembra 1715.233 Gle- de na sumarno navedbo iz iste mrliške matice o 110 umrlih osebah leta 1705 (hic sepulti), se je torej leta 1715 število umrlih skoraj potrojilo. Če pa vzamemo letno povprečje 47,8 umrlih v naslednjih desetih le- tih 1716–1725, je število pokopanih v epidemičnem letu višje skoraj za šestkrat. Postavlja se vprašanje, kolikšen delež novome- škega prebivalstva predstavlja 331 umrlih oseb, med katerimi le manjši del odpade na one, ki jih nista ugonobila epidemija in pomanjkanje. Upoštevaje, da je mesto leta 1754 štelo 1485 prebivalcev in le eno mestu podsodno hišo manj kot leta 1726 (249), lahko za začetek 18. stoletja upravičeno sklepamo o zelo podobnem demografskem stanju. 331 mrličev, domačih in tujih, ki jih je v mesto privedla stiska, bi torej v mestu z manj kot 1500 prebivalci pomenilo dobro petino umrlih, kar je zelo blizu izračunanemu črnomaljskemu deležu med kugo v letih 1691–1692. Tisto leto je bila smrt zelo neusmiljena tudi na Kočevskem. Na tleh mestne župnije Kočevje je umr- lo 246 oseb, od katerih jih je le 145 navedenih po- samič. Poleg teh so duhovniki brez plačila štolnine 231 KANM, šk. 58, M/1 1704–1728: »Anno 1715 – In D(omi) no obierunt provisi sacramentis, ac tumulati illor(um) 331.2 232 Za leto 1715 sta se ohranila samo dva lista, na katerih je za- beležena smrt 34 oseb: 18 meseca julija, 12 avgusta in 4 sep- tembra. 233 Med 34 pokopanimi osebami je bilo 5 beračev, 3 tujci in 2 vojaka, skupaj 9 nedomačinov, od tega 6 brez znanega imena, označenih kot N. ali N. N. 73 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 pokopali 82 ubožnih odraslih in otrok, medtem ko iz zanikrnosti niso zabeležili pokopa 19 otrok. Zgor- nje navedbe iz mrliške matične knjige kažejo na iz- redne razmere, ki so vladale izključno v letu 1715. V mrliških maticah, vodenih od 1669 naprej, namreč nikoli ne naletimo na sumarne podatke o nevpisanih umrlih osebah, čeprav je Kočevska doživljala razne epidemije tudi prej in pozneje. Tolikšnega števila umrlih kot leta 1715 najbrž ni videla nobeno leto ne v 16. ne v 17. stoletju. Glede na desetletno povprečje 1705–1714 – 93,8 smrtnih primerov na leto – se je torej število umrlih leta 1715 povečalo za 262 od- stotkov. Med 145 poimensko navedenimi umrlimi jih na mesto Kočevje odpade sicer samo 23, kar glede na prejšnja leta ne predstavlja prevelikega povečanja; desetletno povprečje 1705–1714 znaša namreč 13,1. Upoštevati pa je seveda dejstvo, da je med 101 ano- nimno umrlo osebo tudi mesto prispevalo svoj delež, tako da je bilo lahko število umrlih mestnih prebival- cev bistveno višje.234 Natančni podatki o umrlih so razvidni tudi iz mr- liške matice župnije Višnja Gora.235 V letu 1715 je v tej župniji umrlo skupno 115 oseb, od tega vsaj 52 ali blizu polovica, ki jih matica označuje kot otroke in mladoletne. Kar 58 ali dobro polovico (51 %) so jih pokopali v dveh spomladanskih mesecih: marca 24 in aprila 34. Po majskem zatišju je smrt poleti pobrala 30 oseb, in sicer junija 11, julija 9 in avgusta zopet 11 ljudi. Mesto Višnja Gora je bilo kljub povečani umr- ljivosti manj prizadeto kot okoliško podeželje. Razen aprila in julija, ko je umrlo po 5 oseb, namreč ni ob- čutilo hujšega. V celem letu je umrlo 17 domačinov, kar sicer znaša dvakratno letno povprečje prejšnjih dveh let (8,5), zaostaja pa za bistveno večjim pora- stom umrljivosti na ravni celotne župnije, kjer je v letih 1713 in 1714 umrlo 78 oziroma 63 oseb. Prav tako ni opaziti povečanega števila umrlih tujcev in beračev, za katere mestece pač ni moglo biti pričako- vani cilj rešitve.236 Visoko umrljivost sta leta 1715 beležila tudi žup- nija in trg Žužemberk. Smrt je množično kosila od februarja do avgusta in dosegla vrhunec meseca maja, ko je umrlo 64 ljudi ali skoraj četrtina od skupno 279 umrlih v tem letu. Glede na prejšnja leta je bil dvig umrljivosti podobno izrazit kot na Kočevskem. Ena- ko hudo sta trpela okolica z 209 smrtnimi primeri kakor tudi trg, kjer je smrt zahtevala 68 življenj.237 Če število umrlih primerjamo s 521 prebivalci, koli- kor jih je ta največji dolenjski trg štel leta 1754,238 je 234 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1669–1724. 235 NŠAL, ŽA Višnja Gora, Matične knjige, M 1713–1748. 236 Oba smrtna primera tujcev v mestu časovno sploh ne sovpa- data z obdobjem povečanega umiranja. V začetku marca je v mestu umrl neki berač, konec septembra pa je nepričakovana smrt dohitela žensko iz sosednje šmarske župnije. 237 NŠAL, ŽA Žužemberk, Matične knjige, M 1710–1724. 238 Popis duš po posameznih krajih, vključno s trgom Žužem- berk, obravnava samo podložnike žužemberškega gospostva (ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–IX–22, Conv. 1, Seelen Conscrip- pomrla približno osmina Žužemberčanov. Delež je v resnici previsok, saj je bil trg v začetku 18. stoletja precej bolj obljuden kot pol stoletja pozneje. Okoli leta 1703 je namreč domačemu gospostvu pripadalo 130 podložnih enot, po terezijanskem katastru pa le še 96.239 Močan dvig umrljivosti so leta 1715 zabeležili tudi v župniji Šmartno pri Litiji. V drugi polovici leta 1714 in v prvi polovici leta 1715 je umrlo okoli 294 oseb, kar je 2,8-krat več od 10-letnega povprečja 1711–1720 (okoli 821 ljudi), brez epidemičnega leta pa kar 5,4-krat več od povprečja (54,1 na leto). Za- nimivo je, da se je umiranje skoraj povsem izognilo trgu Litija, kjer so konec leta 1714 umrle tri osebe, naslednje leto pa niti ena.240 Tako kot drugod so v letih 1714–1715 pokopali neobičajno veliko beračev. V mrliški matici naletimo tudi na beležko načina smrti. Potem ko je 26. avgusta 1714 preminil hlapec Andreja Bratuna s Kresniškega vrha, je naslednji dan nagle smrti (repentina quasi morte) umrl pri istem go- spodarju še drugi hlapec. Koliko ljudi sta epidemija in lakota pobrali v dru- gih mestnih in trških župnijah, zaradi neohranjenih mrliških matic ni ugotovljivo, lahko pa bi umrljivost spremljali še v nekaterih dolenjskih in drugih kranj- skih podeželskih župnijah, kar bi zahtevalo veliko potrpežljivega dela. Raziskava bi sicer podala kom- pleksnejšo podobo umiranja na raznih koncih dežele, zelo malo ali sploh nič pa si lahko od nje obetamo konkretnih poročil o naravi bolezni. Pri t. i. kugi leta 1715 je šlo torej za povezavo dveh tesnih zaveznic: epidemije, ki je utelešala več različnih bolezni, in la- kote, nastale zaradi slabih letin ter motenj v gospo- darskih in komunikacijskih tokovih. V zvezi z epidemijo leta 1715 se kaže pomudi- ti še pri Kostanjevici, edinem dolenjskem mestu, v katerem viri nikoli ne omenjajo izbruha kakšne kuž- ne bolezni. Vse kaže, da je mestece ob Krki navzlic izpostavljeni obmejni legi in bližini več kot nepri- ljubljenih žumberških Uskokov z nemalo sreče pre- brodilo vsa nevarna obdobja velikih epidemij, saj bi v nasprotnem glede na strukturo ohranjenih virov iz njih zanesljivo izvedeli za še tako omejeno žetev črne smrti. Doba, ki je z viri slabše dokumentirana, za Kostanjevico pa usodna, je nastopila šele v prvi četr- tini 18. stoletja, v katero pade ne le epidemično leto 1715, temveč na Dolenjskem tudi dve drugi povišani umrljivosti, o katerih bo še tekla beseda. V mestecu se je v tem času drastično namnožilo število opustelih tion 20. 6. 1754), kar pa pomeni tako rekoč vse trško prebival- stvo razen prebivalcev gradu, župnišča in edine tuje enklave – hube, podložne domačemu župniku (SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 32, N 183). 239 ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–84, Urbar Seisenberg ca. 1703, s. p. – SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 183, No. 20, s. d. (okoli 1755). 240 Morda je bil kak Litijan med osmimi otroki, ki so označeni brez imena in kraja zgolj kot »prolis« ali »infans«. 74 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 domov, tako da je po popisu, nastalem leta 1727 ali malo pred tem, premoglo le še 46 naseljenih hiš in kar 31 pustot, kar pomeni dobri dve petini izpraznje- nih ter propadlih domov (40,3 %).241 Zlasti zaradi sovpadanja z epidemijo leta 1715, ki je v sosednjem Novem mestu pobrala petino prebivalcev, navajajo prejšnje ugotovitve k domnevi, da je eden glavnih ra- zlogov nenadne opustelosti Kostanjevice prav v smrti dobršnega dela prebivalstva. In vendar vse kaže, da temu ni bilo tako, čeprav se je epidemija leta 1715 zaradi splošne razširjenosti zelo verjetno oglasila tudi v tem mestecu. Poročila Kostanjevičanov o vzrokih vidnega propadanja njihovega mesta v prvi polovici 18. stoletja namreč nikjer ne omenjajo kakšne kuge, temveč pripisujejo krivdo trem požarom, od katerih zadnji iz drugih virov ni znan in ga je mogoče posta- viti v čas med 1703 in 1714. Po davčnem registru leta 1702 je brez imen popisanih še 81 obdavčencev in v sočasni vizitaciji vsega tri zapuščene hiše,242 leta 1714 pa govori poročilo mestnega predstojništva že o 26 popolnoma opustelih hišah in o revščini, ker je me- sto v zadnjih šestdesetih letih trikrat povsem pogo- relo.243 Strukturna kriza, značilna za dolenjska mesta nasploh, je mnogim pogorelcem očitno vzela voljo, da bi si postavili nove domove, in jih pognala po svetu. Zadnja velika kužna epidemija na slovenskih tleh je prenehala v začetku leta 1717, potem ko je trajala okoli šest let. Čeprav so bili primeri prave (azijske) kuge tudi drugod po tem letu le še sporadični, je kuga do srede 18. stoletja povzročala obilo skrbi in stro- škov. Zaradi pogostih pojavov v sosednjih deželah na vzhodu in jugu sta namreč znatno trpela promet in trgovina. Prvič po veliki epidemiji so se glasovi o kugi na Turškem in Ogrskem razširili že sredi leta 1718, nakar je na Balkanu in Ogrskem morila še v letih 1720–1724. Pomenljivo je, da se je tedaj pri nas, zlasti na Dolenjskem, pojavila bolezen, imenovana »pleuri- ditis maligna«, zato so se kranjski deželni stanovi bali razširitve kuge tudi na Kranjsko.244 241 Popis je bil v vicedomskem arhivu pomotoma uvrščen med novomeške akte: SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 255, I/133, lit. R I–9, Specification der hernach benanthen bürgerlihen häyßer weliche bewohnt sein. – Datiranje popisa v čas malo pred 1727 so omogočile navedbe vdov, za katere iz poročne matične knjige vemo, kdaj so se vnovič poročile (NŠAL, ŽA Kostanjevica, Matične knjige, R 1723–1770, v njej: P 1726–1770, M 1745–1770). 242 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 185, fasc. 104, lit. L II–7, Stüfft register der Statt Landtstraß v(on) 1702, 30. 4. 1703. 243 Prav tam, lit. L II–1, 5. 8. 1714. – Medtem ko poznamo poža- ra leta 1663 in 1674, ki sta upepelila skoraj polovico oziroma petino domov (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, šk. 184, I/104, lit. L II–2, 31. 3. 1686, 9. 8. 1686), tretji – zadnji požar iz virov ni znan. Valvasor ni o njem vedel ničesar, če- prav je bil sicer na tekočem s požari v drugih mestih, ki so izbruhnili zadnja leta pred izidom Slave. Prav tako ne govo- rijo o posledicah ognja obsežna navodila mestnemu predstoj- ništvu leta 1691 (prav tam, 28. 7. 1691) niti spisi omenjene vicedomske vizitacije leta 1703. 244 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 132. Omenjenemu, pobliže neznanemu vnetju, gre pripisati povečano umrljivost, ki jo izkazujejo matič- ne knjige nekaterih obravnavanih župnij v začetku dvajsetih let 18. stoletja. Sicer pa mrliške matične knjige tudi v tem času nikoli ne govorijo o vzrokih smrti. Hudo je bilo zlasti na Kočevskem, kjer je šte- vilo smrtnih primerov leta 1721 glede na povprečje prejšnjih let spet poskočilo za nekajkrat. V celotni župniji je umrlo 166, v mestu Kočevje pa 24 oseb, od tega največ otrok.245 Porast je leto poprej, leta 1720, opaziti v Novem mestu, kjer so pokopali 73 oseb ter 75 leta 1724.246 V župniji Višnja Gora se je umrlji- vost nekoliko dvignila v letih 1721 in 1722, pri čemer mestno prebivalstvo ni bilo prizadeto bolj kot prej- šnja in naslednja leta.247 Kar pet let zapored je beležil visoko število smrtnih primerov žužemberški župnik, zlasti leta 1721 in 1724, ko je umrlo 95 oziroma 96 oseb. Trg Žužemberk je leta 1721 doživel podobno, a nekoliko manjšo morijo kot v kužnem letu 1715. Izgubil je 41 prebivalcev (leta 1715 – 68), 23 oseb iz trga pa so pokopali tudi leta 1724.248 Ali je izumrla tudi kakšna družina, ne vemo; sama hišna posest se je do leta 1731 glede na stanje okoli 1703 zmanjšala za (samo) pet domov.249 Visoko število smrtnih prime- rov so v letih 1721 in 1724 beležili v župniji Metlika, kjer se najstarejša ohranjena mrliška matica z letom 1720 šele začenja. Naslednje leto je umrl 101 člo- vek, nakar so jih tri leta pozneje, leta 1724, pokopali 136.250 Veliko bolje kot za leto 1715 so dokumentira- ni vzroki povečane umrljivosti na Metliškem leta 1724. Tja so kranjski deželni stanovi poslali zdrav- nika Franca Ksaverija Zalokarja, ki je po vrnitvi v Novo mesto v svojem poročilu 26. februarja 1725 kot poglavitni vzrok epidemije grajal predvsem slabe higienske razmere.251 Deset preteklih dni je v me- tliški, črnomaljski, semiški in viniški župniji vizitiral bolnike in podal natančen opis bolezenskih znakov, od kraja do kraja zelo različnih. Pravzaprav je šlo za sočasen izbruh več bolezni; poleg glavne »pleuriditis maligna«, sta odrasle morila še pljučnica in nalezlji- vi katar, otroke pa vnetje zadnjice. Zdravnik Zalokar je nadalje opisal, kako zlahka se bolezen »pleuriditis maligna« prenaša z dihanjem majhnih hišah, ki jih je srečal na svojem obhodu, svoje pa je prispevalo še naglo ohlajanje in segrevanje ozračja. Drugi razlog okužbe je slaba navada tamkajšnjih ljudi, da se v svo- jih ozkih, močno zakurjenih sobah v mrličevi nav- zočnosti dobesedno pražijo ob razbeljeni žerjavici. Nemalokrat so poleg še jagnjeta in druga živina, po 245 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1669–1724. 246 KANM, šk. 58, M/11704–1728. 247 NŠAL, ŽA Višnja Gora, Matične knjige, M 1713–1748. 248 NŠAL, ŽA Žužemberk, Matične knjige, M 1710–1724. 249 ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–84, Urbar Seisenberg ca. 1703, s. p.; A–15–97, Urbar Seisenberg 1731–1733, fol. 1–32. 250 ŽA Metlika, Matične knjige, M 1720–1739. 251 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 132. 75 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 obilni mrtvaški pojedini, ki ji Hrvati252 pravijo »kar- mina«, kjer se pogrebci navzamejo okuženega zraka, pa se iz vroče izbe odpravijo ven na mraz. Zalokar je v imenu deželnih oblasti prepovedal tovrstne pojedi- ne ob mrličih in prinašanje ognja v sobe, potem ko se je v neki izbi v mestu Črnomelj do smrti opekel nek otrok. Ukazal je tudi ločevanje mrtvih od živih, saj se je zgodilo, da je med spovedovanjem bolnika pod njegovo posteljo ležal mrtvec. Še največkrat so bolni ozdraveli, če so jim takoj po izbruhu bolezni puščali kri. V več vaseh so dnevno umrle po 2 do 3 osebe, a največ 6 v isti župniji v enem dnevu. Natan- čen poimenski seznam umrlih je poročevalec sesta- vil na podlagi mrliških matičnih knjig. Od Novega leta do 17. februarja je v župniji Metlika umrlo 59 oseb, v župniji Črnomelj 52, v župniji Semič 19, v župniji Podzemelj 25, v župniji Vinica pa eden od petih obolelih že za božič prejšnje leto. Mesti Me- tlika in Črnomelj sta bili prizadeti različno, vendar slednje še zdaleč ne tako hudo kot med kugo v letih 1691–1692. V metliškem predmestju je umrlo 8 oseb in v mestu samem 6 skupaj z dvema novorojenima otrokoma vkvartiranih vojakov. Manjše črnomaljsko mestje je izgubilo 15 prebivalcev, od tega 5 otrok, predmestje pa 6 odraslih in enega otroka.253 Do srede 18. stoletja opazimo v obravnavanih dolenjskih župnijah še nekaj sočasnih porastov umr- ljivosti, ki jih lahko pripišemo tej ali oni nalezljivi bolezni oziroma lakoti, poročil o vrsti bolezni pa mr- liške matične knjige ne dajejo. Najizrazitejši primer množičnega umiranja, o katerem so se razširili neres- nični »kužni glasovi«, je zaslediti med jesenjo 1736 in pomladjo 1737 v Novem mestu. Od 22. novembra 1736 do 20. marca 1737 je za neimenovano bolezni- jo umrlo 47 vojakov, njihovih žena in oseb iz polka Franca Lotarinškega, nekajkrat tudi po dva ali celo trije vojaki na dan. Vojaštvo ni bil edini socialni sloj, ki ga je epidemija zajela, bilo pa je njen prinašalec in najštevilnejša žrtev. V mesecu januarju in deloma februarju se je v primerjavi s povprečjem prejšnjih let več kot podvojilo tudi število umrlih domačinov, kar kaže na razširitev okužbe med civilno prebivalstvo.254 Ukrepi za preprečitev širjenja bolezni so morali biti dovolj strogi, glasovi o nevarnosti pa močno prena- pihnjeni. Na poverjeniški urad kranjskih deželnih stanov sta se v zvezi z novomeško epidemijo v mar- cu ločeno obrnila poverjeniški urad deželnih stanov Goriške in zdravstveni odbor mesta Koper v beneški Istri. Koprčani so prosili za poročilo, ali sta Kranj- ska in posebej Novo mesto resnično zaprta. Goriški stanovski poverjeniki so od zdravstvenega odbora v beneški Palmanovi celo prejeli dopis, da so na Kranj- skem uvedli zaporo, ker naj bi v Novem mestu umrlo 252 Mišljeni so Belokranjci (Golec, Nedokončana kroatizacija, str. 24). 253 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 688, fasc. 393, Sanitetno poročilo iz Bele krajine 1725. 254 KANM, šk. 66, M/3 1736–1752. 30 oseb. Strah pred kugo je bil velik in upravičen, saj je isto leto morila v turški Bosni. Kranjski stanovski poverjeniki so na koprska in goriška povpraševanja odgovorili, da gre za izmišljotine in hudobijo tistih, ki so razširjali vesti o nalezljivi kužni bolezni in za- pori. V resnici je prejšnje leto s sedmimi četami polka vojvode Lotarinškega prišlo z Ogrskega na Kranjsko nekaj bolnih mož, ki so jih nastanili v Novem mestu. Umrli so za »ogrsko vročico«, a nihče nenadoma in nepreviden. Odkar se je moštvo po prestanih naporih odpočilo, že od jeseni ni slišati o tej bolezni. Poročilo, napisano 25. marca 1737, je resnico nekoliko prikro- jilo, saj se je val množičnega umiranja končal šele pet dni pred tem. Konec istega leta pa je Beneška repu- blika na mejah s Kranjsko še zadnjič uvedla mejno zaporo zaradi goveje kuge in epidemije, ki je morila v karlovškem generalatu.255 Za Kranjsko je poleg posameznih kužnih pri- merov na Goriškem leta 1732 predstavljala zadnjič neposredno nevarnost kuga v ogrskih in hrvaških po- krajinah med letoma 1738 in 1741. Povzročila je vi- soke izdatke za varnostne ukrepe in popolno prene- hanje trgovine. Poslednji primer zapiranja meja proti Hrvaški in kužne zapore sploh pade v leto 1744, ko so oblasti epidemijo kmalu zatrle. Ogrsko, Hrvaško, Dalmacijo in turško Bosno je kuga obiskovala še sko- raj do konca 18. stoletja. Zaradi nje sta v sosednjih avstrijskih dednih deželah trpela promet in trgovina, hujših posledic pa ni bilo.256 Od srede 18. stoletja se je kuga kot taka in tudi kot oznaka za epidemijo umaknila novim in starim epidemičnim boleznim, ki so se že prej mestoma skrivale pod njenim imenom. Na prehodu v zdra- vstveno ugodnejše obdobje brez pravih kug kaže na Dolenjskem omeniti zlasti epidemijo griže v drugi polovici petdesetih let.257 Ta sicer ni zahtevala toliko žrtev kot nekatere kužne epidemije, a je v več do- lenjskih mestih in trgih v letih 1757–1758 pobrala tudi po nekaj deset odraslih in otrok.258 Vendar pa posledic te in poznejših epidemij še zdaleč ni mogoče primerjati s starejšimi kužnim epidemijami. Pri sled- njih sta že strah pred okužbo in dejanska nevarnost hitrega širjenja vznemirjala dežele daleč od žarišča epidemije. Gospodarske posledice zaradi zaprtja pro- metnic in ohromitve utečenih življenjskih tokov in funkcij so bile tako praviloma nesorazmerno večje od samih demografskih posledic, ki se v primerjavi z vznemirjenjem v domači in okoliških deželah pogo- sto, a neupravičeno zdijo skorajda zanemarljive. 255 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 688, fasc. 393, Zapora v Beneški Istri 1732, 1737. 256 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, str. 132–133. – SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, šk. 688, fasc. 393. 257 SI AS 6, Reprezentanca in komora za Kranjsko v Ljublja- ni, šk. 120, fasc. XXXIX, Sanitetne zadeve, 30. 8. 1756, 6. 9. 1756. 258 Prim. Golec, Prebivalstvo in družba, str. 99 sl. 76 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 VIRI IN LITERATURA ARHIVSKI VIRI SI AS – Arhiv Republike Slovenije AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg. AS 6, Reprezentanca in komora za Kranjsko v Ljubljani AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko: AS 746, Cistercijanski samostan Kostanjevica AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica AS 1074, Zbirka urbarjev AS 1080, Zbirka Muzejskega društva za Kranj- sko, Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo in Histo- ričnega društva za Kranjsko DOZA – Deutschordens-Zentralarchiv, Wien Abt. Österreich, BÖ = Abteilung Österreich, Ballei Österreich KANM – Kapiteljski arhiv Novo mesto Kapucinski samostan Krško NŠAL – Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana ŽA – Župnijski arhivi: ŽA Črnomelj, ŽA Ko- čevje, ŽA Kostanjevica, ŽA Ljubljana–sv. Niko- laj, ŽA Ljubljana–sv. Peter, ŽA Mokronog, ŽA Šmartno pri Litiji, ŽA Višnja Gora, ŽA Žužem- berk. ÖStA, HHStA – Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Wien FAA – Fürstlich Auerspergsches Archiv StLA – Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv Graz I.Ö. HK – Archiv der innerösterreichischen Hof- kammer I.Ö. HK-Rep. – Repertorien der innerösterrei- chischen Hofkammer I.Ö. HK-Akten – Innerösterreichischen Hof- kammer-Akten ŽA Metlika – Župnijski arhiv Metlika LITERATURA IN OBJAVLJENI VIRI Benedik, Metod in Kralj, Angel: Kapucini na Slo- venskem v zgodovinskih virih. Nekdanja Štajerska kapucinska province. Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgo- dovino Cerkve pri Teološki fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani, 1994 (Acta ecclesiastica Sloveniae, 16). [Dimitz, August]: Annalen der landesfürstlichen Stadt Gurkfeld. Mittheilungen des historischen Ve- reins für Krain 15, 1860, str. 84–85. [Dimitz, August]: Beiträge zur fünfhundertjährigen Gründungsfeier von Neustadtl (Rudolfswerth) in Unterkrain. Mittheilungen des historischen Vereins für Krain 20, 1865, str. 25–44. Dimitz, August: Geschichte Krains von der ältesten Zeit bis auf das Jahr 1813. Vierter Theil. Laibach: Kleinmyr & Bamberg, 1876 Dimitz, August: Zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte in Krain, II. Landstraß. Mittheilungen des historischen Vereins für Krain 19, 1864, str. 79–80. Dular, Jože: Metlika skozi stoletja. Metlika: Belo- kranjsko muzejsko društvo, 1978. Dular, Jože: Metlika skozi stoletja. Metlika: Belo- kranjsko muzejsko društvo, 1986. Golec, Boris: Nedokončana kroatizacija delov vzhodne Slovenije med 16. in 19. stoletjem: po sledeh hrvaške- ga lingvonima in etnonima v Beli krajini, Kostelu, Prekmurju in Prlekiji. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2012. Golec, Boris: Prebivalstvo in družba dolenjskih me- ščanskih naselij od 15. do srede 18. stoletja. Ljublja- na, 1997 (magistrska naloga). Jarc, Janko: Iz preteklih stoletij Novega mesta. Novo mesto. Kulturnozgodovinski vodnik (ur. Tone Knez). Novo mesto: Dolenjski muzej, 1976, str. 17–96. Jelinčič, Zdravko: Črna smrt v Gorici leta 1682. Kro- nika 2, 1954, št. 2, str. 115–121. Koblar, A.[nton]: Iz kronike krškega mesta. Izve- stja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 9, 1899, str. 19–24. Koblar, Anton: O človeški kugi na Kranjskem. Izve- stja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 1, 1891, str. 39–55. Koropec, Jože: Krško v obdobju velikih slovenskih kmečkih vstaj. Krško skozi čas 1477–1977. Zbornik ob 500-letnici mesta (ur. Lado Smrekar). Krško: Skupščina občine, Odbor za pripravo praznova- nja 500-letnice Krškega, 1977, str. 45–59. Koropec, Jože: Žebnik, Radeče in Svibno do 17. sto- letja. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 50, NV 15, 1979, št. 1–2, str. 51–77. Luschin v. Ebengreuth, A.[lfons]: Ein Protokoll der Stadt Stein. Mitteilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 18, 1905, str. 38–67. Milkowicz, Wlad.[imir]: Beiträge zur Rechts- und Verwaltungsgeschichte Krains. Mitteilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 2, 1889, str. 3–40; 3, 1890, str. 41–52. Podlogar, Leopold: Kronika mesta Črnomlja in nje- ga župe. Ljubljana: Samozaložba Tomo Zupan, 1906. Podlogar, Leopold: Požari v Metliki. Izvestja Muzej- skega društva za Kranjsko 7, 1907, str. 46. Smole, Majda: Kuga na Kranjskem v 16. stoletju. Kronika 5, 1957, št. 2, str. 97–98. Travner, Vladimir: Kuga na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Življenje in svet, 1934. 77 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–782022 Umek, Ema: Kuga na Štajerskem v letih 1679–1683. Kronika 6, 1958, št. 2, str. 80–84. Valenčič, Vlado: Prebivalstvo in hiše stare Ljubljane. Kronika 5, 1957, št. 3, str. 111–123. Valvasor, Johann Weichard: Die Ehre deß Hertzog- thums Crain, I–XV. Laybach, Nürnberg: Wolf- gang Moritz Endter, 1689. Vrhovec, Ivan: Zgodovina Novega mesta. Ljubljana: Matica slovenska, 1891. Vrhovec, Joh.[ann]: Die Pest in Laibach. Mitteilun- gen des Musealvereines für Krain 12, 1899, str. 25– 40, 83–99, 129–141; 13, 1900, str. 17–24. Waltritsch, Marko: Prvi goriški kronist Giovanni Maria Marusig in njegovi opisi nasilnih smrti v Gorici v 17. stoletju. Množične smrti na Sloven- skem. Zbornik referatov. 29. zborovanje slovenskih zgodovinarjev. Izola, 22. – 24. 10. 1998 (ur. Stane Granda in Barbara Šatej). Ljubljana: Zveza zgo- dovinskih društev, 1999, str. 189–200. Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Epidemije na Slovenskem. Lakote, kuge in vojne reši nas, o Gospod! Mno- žične smrti na Slovenskem. Zbornik referatov. 29. zborovanje slovenskih zgodovinarjev. Izola, 22. – 24. 10. 1998 (ur. Stane Granda in Barbara Šatej). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev, 1999, str. 201–210. Z U S A M M E N F A S S U N G Die Seuchen in Unterkrain (Dolenjska) zwi- schen Überlieferung und Realität Unterkrain war jenes slowenische Land, das in der frühen Neuzeit am häufigsten von verschiede- nen Epidemien heimgesucht und neben Istrien am stärksten betroffen wurde. Vor allem seine Städtchen, überwiegend sehr klein und unbedeutend, erlitten unter den slowenischen Binnenstädten zweifelsoh- ne die schlimmsten Folgen der Seuchen. Auch sonst hatten Städte und Märkte im Vergleich zum flachen Land eine schwerere Last an den Epidemien zu tra- gen wegen ihrer Transitlage und Bevölkerungsdichte. Die schwerste Last in Unterkrain trug Rudolfswert (Novo mesto), die zweitbedeutendste Stadt in Krain und die einzige unter den sieben Städten in Unter- krain mit mehr als tausend Einwohnern. Angesichts der Kleinheit der Stadtsiedlungen überrraschen in den Quellen umso mehr die außerordentlich hohen Zahlen der Toten, wie sie anderswo in Krain nicht zu verzeichnen sind. Gerade die Glaubwürdigkeit und Bedeutung der Zahl der Toten stellt eine der Haupt- fragen dar, die angesichts der ungüstigen Struktur und Natur er Quellen einigermaßen zufriedenstel- lend im vorliegenden Beitrag beantwortet werden soll. Weniger greifbar sind die Dimensionen der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Folgen der Epidemien, die sich mit zuverlässigen Parametern praktisch nicht erfassen lassen. Aus diesem Grunde werden die deskriptive Ebene und der Wortschatz zeitgenössi- scher Berichte nur mit knapper Not überschritten. Ebenso weiß man fast nichts über die Krankheits- symptome einzelner Seuchen, mit deren Hilfe man einzig auf die eigentliche Krankheit schließen könn- te. Hinter dem Begriff der Pest stecken im behandel- ten Zeitraum neben der echten Pest noch etwa zehn ansteckende Krankheiten. Sehr wenig ist über das Geschehen selbst in einer Zeit bekannt, wo die Pest wütete. Davon zeugen nur die Richter-Rechnungen von Weichselburg (Višnja Gora) aus der Zeit von drei kleineren Epidemien in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts sowie Berichte des sog. Contagions-komissars in Tscher- nembl (Črnomelj) aus den Jahren 1691-1692, zu denen auch die einzigen erhaltenen Listen der Toten gehören und jener Angesteckten, die genesen sind. Gerade für jene Städte, von denen uns neuere Be- richte über eine hohe Zahl von Toten zur Verfügung stehen, gibt es keine derartigen Berichte aus erster Hand. Summarische Angaben über die Zahl der Todesfälle in größerem oder kleinerem zeitlichen Abstand von den Städten selbst vermittelt wurden, mußten daher mit allerlei anderen zeitgenössischen Quellen konfrontiert werden. Mit besonderer Aufmerksamkeit und zugleich Vorsicht sind die genauen, nicht abgerundeten Zah- len zu betrachten, bei denen man den Eindruck ge- winnt, daß sie auf zeitgenössischen Spezifizierungen beruhen mußten. Die augenscheinlichsten Über- treibungen stellen summarische Angaben über gut 800 tote Rudolfswerter im Jahre 1599 dar, davon 149 Hausbesitzer, und über nicht weniger als 1.200 Pestopfer in Mottling (Metlika) in den Jahren 1646- 1647. Im Fall der Stadt Rudolfswert hätten die To- ten mehr als die Hälfte der Bevölkerung ausgemacht, doch eine Namensanalyse der Besitzer der veröde- ten Häuser zeigte, daß man höchstens mit einigen hundert Gestorbenen rechnen kann. Mottling hätte mehr Einwohner verloren, als die Stadt Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts überhaupt gehabt haben kann (um 900). Viel realistischer sind die Angaben über die 322 an der Pest gestorbenen Rudolfswerter im Jahre 1625, ferner über »nur 18 Tote« im Jahre 1648 und über 331 Begräbnisse im ganzen Jahr 1715, in dem die letzte Seuche wütete. Nichtnumerische Quellenangaben über den Tod einer großen Zahl von Menschen oder sogar über das Aussterben einer Stadt (Tschernembl) sind nur eine Art Ausdrucksstil und nicht wortwörtlich zu verstehen. Darunter befinden sich auch evidente Unwahrheiten, die für die höheren Behörden außer- halb Krains bestimmt waren, wie etwa die von 1599, 78 BORIS GOLEC: KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO, 41–78 2022 daß die Hälfte der Bürger und Inwohner in Weich- selburg tot sei oder in derselben Zeit, es habe viele Tote gegeben unter den angesehensten Bürgern von Gottschee (Kočevje). Die Heranziehung von Steuer- registern und anderer zeitgenössischer Quellen aus der Epidemiezeit oder unmittelbar danach offenbart ganz andere Tatsachen: von der Pest wurden die bei- den Städte nur gestreift, Gottschee vielleicht sogar umgangen. Außer Rudolfswert trafen die Pestepidemien noch drei Unterkrainer Städte schwer: die Epide mie 1646-1647 Gurkfeld (Krško) und Mottling, für welche Zahl und Anteil der verstorbenen Einwohner nicht feststellbar sind, und eine lokal begrenzte Pest- epidemie Tschernembl in den Jahren 1691-1692. Hier erkrankten 216 und starben 139 Menschen (64,4%), ca. ein Fünftel der gesamten Stadtbevölke- rung. Mindestens ein Fünftel der verstorbenen Ein- wohner kann auch in Rudolfswert für die Jahre 1625 und 1715 festgestellt werden, falls die 322 bzw. 331 Personen nicht eher ein Viertel darstellten oder so- gar einen noch höheren Anteil, der sich schon einem Drittel nähert. Erst die letzte Epideirüe von 1715 karm in den Sterbebüchern in mehreren Unterkrainer Pfar- ren verfolgt werden. Allem Anschein nach handelt es sich außer in Rudolfswert zwar nicht um hohe, dennoch um nicht unbeträchtliche Menschenopfer. Das war zugleich die letzte große Epidemie, die in den Quellen als Pest bezeichnet wird. Bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts wurde Krain nur noch durch Ausbruch der Pest in seiner östlichen Nachbarschaft beunruhigt. Obwohl die Pest nicht mehr im Lande wütete, richtete sie nach wie vor wegen der teilwei- sen oder vollständigen Lähmung des Waren- und Personenverkehrs auch in Unterkrain großen wirt- schaftlichen Schaden an. Es ist durchaus verständlich, warum die demo- graphischen Folgen in den Quellen immer mit den wirtschaftlichen in Zusammenhang gebracht werden. Dem Ausbruch der Epidemie an einem bestimmten Ort folgte nämlich die Karantäne oder die sog. Ban- disierung des Seuchengebiets. Dies bedeutete, daß alle Art Kommunikationen, wie Handels- und Ver- kehrsverbindungen, abgebrochen wurden. Seuchen- wachen, die in anderen potentiell gefährdeten Ge- bieten von Landes- oder einzelnen Ortsbehörden aufgestellt wurden, verwehrten Personen und Waren, die ohne Gesundheitszeugnisse, die sog. Fedi waren, den Zugang. Der Ausbruch einer auch lokal begrenz- ten Epidemie hatte die Sperre der Landesgrenzen zur Folge und bedeutete eine starke Einschränkung bzw. die völlige Lähmung des Verkehrs. Darunter litt auf die eine oder andere Weise die gesamte Landes- wirtschaft. Vor allem wegen der langdauernden Sper- ren mußten verschiedene Wirtschaftszweige erheb- liche Verluste hinnehmen, das hatte eine Verarmung bestimmter Bevölkerungsschichten zur Folge, führte zu Steuerunfähigkeit, die in letzter Konsequenz das Landesärar zu spüren bekam, ferner gab es Mangel an Lebensmitteln und anderen Waren und letzlich auch echte Hungersnöte. 79 2022 IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA UDK 616.932:94(497.4)"18" Katarina Keber dr., višja znanstvena sodelavka, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana E-pošta: katarina.keber@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2586-4983 Kranjski obrambni mehanizem za zaščito pred prvo epidemijo kolere v Evropi* IZVLEČEK Proti epidemiji kolere, ki je Evropo prvič dosegla v začetku tridesetih let 19. stoletja, se je habsburška oblast borila z enakimi sredstvi kot v 18. stoletju proti kugi. S sistemom zdravstvenih kordonov so najprej zaščitili državne meje, po pojavu bolezni znotraj monarhije pa tudi meje posameznih dežel. Iz primera zdravstvenega kordona na kranj- sko-hrvaški meji, ki je bil vzpostavljen za zaščito pred epidemijo v ogrskem delu države, je razviden sistem rastelov in karanten ter vzroki, ki so vodili k vsesplošnemu nadaljnjemu opuščanju zapiranja meja kot sredstvu za obrambo pred kolero. KLJUČNE BESEDE kolera, epidemije, zdravstveni kordon, Kranjska, 19. stoletje ABSTRACT CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE The Habsburg authority fought against the epidemic of cholera, which firstly reached Europe at the beginning of the 30ies of the 18th century, with identical means as they did in the 18th century against plague. With a system of sanitary cordons, they initially protected the state borders, and after the occurrence of the disease within the monarchy, borders of separate provinces as well. From the example of a sanitary cordon on the Carniolan-Croatian border, which was established for the protection against the epidemic in the Hungarian part of the state, the system of controlled pas- sages trough sanitary cordons (rastel) and quarantines is evident, and causes that lead to general further discontinu- ation of closing borders as a means of defence against cholera. KEY WORDS history of medicine, epidemics, Cholera, sanitary cordon, Carniola, 19th century * Prispevek je ponatis iz Kronike 53, 2005, št. 3, str. 351–364. 80 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–92 2022 V tridesetih letih devetnajstega stoletja je Evro- pa doživela prvo epidemijo azijske kolere. Do širitve bolezni iz Azije v Evropo je po vsej verjetnosti prišlo zaradi intenzivnejših trgovskih stikov in povečanega prometa med angleškim imperijem in Indijo oziro- ma zaradi angleške ekspanzije na vzhod. Kolera se je iz Indije širila po dveh glavnih poteh in sicer bodisi preko Perzije in ob reki Ural navzgor v Rusijo ter naprej v Evropo bodisi iz smeri Meke preko pristani- ških mest Konstantinopel v Turčiji in Aleksandrije v Egiptu. Prvič se je bolezen v Evropi pojavila v okviru druge pandemije1 v letih 1826–1837, ki v splošnem predstavlja prvo pravo izkušnjo večine sveta s kole- ro. Iz območja okoli Črnega morja se je bolezen v Evropo razširila iz dveh strani in sicer preko Poljske, ko se je leta 1830 pojavila v vzhodni Galiciji, in na območje obdonavskih kneževin.2 Leta 1831 je zajela Sankt Peterburg, Berlin in Hamburg, se pojavila na Finskem ter v Angliji. V Habsburški monarhiji je bo- lezen prizadela poleg Dunaja še Galicijo, Moravsko, Šlezijo, Sedmograško, Zgornjo in Spodnjo Avstrijo, Štajersko ter češki in predvsem ogrski del monarhije. V dobrih šestih letih se je kolera razširila po vsej stari celini ter Severni in Latinski Ameriki.3 Politika oblasti Ob pojavu kolere v Habsburški monarhiji leta 1831 je državna oblast ukrepala v dveh stopnjah. Prva je bila izključno preventivne narave, ko so po- skušali zaščititi meje države pred neznano boleznijo iz sosednjih držav. V ta namen so po vzhodni meji monarhije vzpostavili sistem mejnih zdravstvenih kordonov.4 Druga faza obrambe pa je imela poleg preventivnega tudi že kurativni značaj. Začela se je, ko je kolera predrla mejne zaščitne mehanizme in se razširila znotraj monarhije. Z izolacijo okuženih predelov so oblasti poskušale omejiti širitev v ostale dele države, notranjo zaščito dežel pa vzpostaviti z ustanavljanjem kriznih, začasnih zdravstvenih obla- sti s skoraj neomejenimi pooblastili, v obliki dežel- nih zdravstvenih komisij. Slednje so v že okuženih predelih poskušale organizirati pomoč in zdravljenje bolnikov. Prva stopnja obrambe proti epidemiji bo predstavljena na primeru organizacije zdravstvenega kordona na kranjsko-hrvaški meji. 1 Robert Pollitzer je širitve kolere razdelil v sedem pandemij oziroma epidemij svetovnih razsežnosti. V okviru druge pan- demije so epidemije leta 1832 v Angliji, na Irskem, v Fran- ciji s Parizom, v Quebecu, Montrealu, New Yorku in Phila- delphii; leta 1833 v Španiji, na Portugalskem, Karibih in v Latinski Ameriki; leta 1835 v Italiji ter v naslednjih letih v Sredozemlju – leta 1836 prva epidemija kolere na Kranjskem. 2 Krebs, Die geographische Verbreitung der Cholera, str. 8. 3 The Cambridge World History of Human Disease, str. 645–648. 4 Sanitarni oz. zdravstveni kordon je pas ozemlja, čez katerega je prehod prepovedan zaradi širjenja nalezljivih bolezni. Kuga in zdravstveni kordoni Celotni sistem obrambe je v Habsburški monar- hiji temeljil na predpisih in praksi, ki so se v prej- šnjih stoletjih izoblikovali v boju proti epidemijam kuge.5 Zdravstveni kordoni in karantena so bili tudi na Kranjskem preizkušeno zaščitno sredstvo pro- ti kugi, znan je primer zapore meje na Karavankah med letoma 1713 in 1716 zaradi kuge na Koroškem.6 Tako so zaščitni ukrepi proti koleri v času njene prve evropske epidemije v Habsburški monarhiji temelji- li na Pest-Reglementu, patentu Marije Terezije z dne 2. januarja 1770, oziroma Splošnem zdravstvenem zakonu o boju proti kugi.7 Pred tem so veljali različni kužni redi (Infections-Ordnung), prvega je izdal cesar Ferdinand I. leta 1551. Pest-Reglement v prvem delu ureja organizacijo zdravstvene službe v monarhiji, v drugem delu pa predpisuje posebno organizacijo zdravstvene službe v Vojni krajini.8 Slednja se je iz sprva strogo vojaške formacije sčasoma preoblikovala v zdravstveno preventivno ustanovo, ki je s posebnimi or- ganizacijskimi oblikami in kontumacijskimi napravami varovala ne le Avstrijo, temveč tudi vso Evropo pred vdorom kuge in drugih nalezljivih bolezni ter epizootij, ki so se nenehno širile iz turškega sultanata.9 Zdravstve- ni kordon v Vojni krajini je postal stalna institucija z letom 1728. Protikužna zapora se je izkazala za učin- kovito, saj je v drugi polovici 18. stoletja kuga kordon predrla samo petkrat in le enkrat resneje ogrozila monarhijo.10 Zdravstveni kordon, ki so ga vzpostavili leta 1831 za zaščito pred kolero, je bil torej organiziran na pod- lagi določil Pest-Reglementa iz leta 1770 po zgledu kordona v Vojni krajini in je veljal do 14. oktobra 1831, ko ga je cesar nadomestil s predpisi za epide- mične bolezni.11 Ukinili so vse posebne ukrepe kot so bile zapora meje oziroma zdravstveni kordon in karantenske postaje, ter začeli kolero obravnavati kot 5 Peter Baldwin pogojuje odločitev za posamezne zaščitne ukrepe v različnih evropskih državah s prejšnjimi izkušnjami s preventivo, z razumevanjem prenosa bolezni, z geografskimi danostmi in ekonomijo. Značilno je, da so ob prvi epidemiji kolere leta 1831 strog institut karantene uvajale avtokratske države vzhodne Evrope, kot so bile Rusija, Prusija in Avstrija. Zahodna Evropa je uvajala veliko milejšo obliko karantenske politike v kombinaciji z drugimi ukrepi. Izjemo so predstav- ljala velika pristaniška mesta, kot sta bila Hamburg in Mar- seille (Brunton, Dealing with disease, str. 194–195). 6 Koblar, O človeški kugi na Kranjskem, str. 45. Gl. tudi: Žon- tar, Zapora proti kugi. 7 Borisov, Od ranocelništva, str. 90; Kobal, O koleri na Kranj- skem, str. 74. Izraz Pest-Regelment povzemam po Kobalu, medtem ko Grmek govori o Normativum sanitatis. 8 SI AS 1079, Zbirka normalij, t. e. 4, patent Marije Terezije z dne 2. januarja 1770; Borisov, Od ranocelništva, str. 78. 9 Borisov, Od ranocelništva, str. 73. 10 Borisov, Od ranocelništva, str. 74; Grmek, Sanitarni kordon Vojne krajine, str. 457–458. 11 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 738: razglas ilirskega guber- nija z dne 17. november 1831; SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljublja- ni, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2413. 81 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–922022 vsako drugo epidemično bolezen na osnovi norma- tiva iz leta 1806.12 Normativ tako ni več predpisoval posebnih državnih obrambnih ukrepov in je v svojih desetih členih vseboval zgolj splošne preventivne in kurativne ukrepe, ki naj bi se jih držal vsak posame- znik v času nalezljivih bolezni. Vseboval je določilo, da bolezen ni nova in da se je že pojavljala ob po- dobnih vremenskih razmerah in okoliščinah, da pa bo z boljšim vremenom in božjo pomočjo pregnana (Die Krankheit ist nicht neu, sondern wir sahen selbe bey einer ähnliche lange anhaltenden Witterung und unter gleichen Umständen immer entstehen. Wir dürfen auch, da die Jahreszeit nun so weit vorgerückt und be- reit besseres Wetter eingetreten ist, es mit Zuversicht er- warten, dass Gott diese Krankheit bald gänzlich von uns hinwegnehmen werde).13 Ljudem so svetovali zmeren in zdrav način življenja s poudarkom na čistoči sta- novanja in okolja, predpisovali postopke ravnanja v primeru obolenja in ljudi prepričevali, naj bodo do- bre volje in da naj imajo trdno vero v boga.14 Razmere, ki so terjale spremembo v samem ra- zumevanju narave bolezni in posledično tudi spre- membo obrambne strategije proti koleri, je cesar opi- sal v kabinetnem pismu kanclerju združene dvorne pisarne grofu Mitrowskemu.15 Iz pisma je razvidno, da je do spremembe v veljavi predpisov prišlo iz več razlogov. Najpomembnejši je bil ta, da so se obramb- ni mehanizmi, ki jih je predpisoval Pest-Reglement, v primeru epidemij kolere izkazali za popolnoma neučinkovite. Sredi oktobra 1831, potem ko se je epidemija kolere kljub vzpostavljenim zdravstvenim kordonom znotraj monarhije že dodobra razširila, je oblast spoznala, da kordoni in mreža karantenskih ustanov v boju proti novi nalezljivi bolezni ne za- ležejo. Obrambni sistem, ki je po eni strani zaradi gradnje potrebne infrastrukture in zaposlovanja ljudi izčrpaval državno blagajno, je po drugi strani med 12 Laibacher Zeitung, Amts-Blatt 1. 12. 1831, št. 144, str. 1221– 1222; SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 739: Unterricht in Be- zug des Benehmens bei epidemisch ansteckenden Krankheiten von 27. Februar 1806. 13 Laibacher Zeitung, Amts-Blatt 1. 12. 1831, št. 144, str. 1221– 1222. 14 Prav tam. 15 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2413. V slovenskem prevodu: »Ko je epidemična kolera grozila, da bo vdrla v moje države, so bili tako narava kot tudi nastanek in način širjenja te bolezni dvomljivi. Previdnost, modrost in skrb za zdravje mojih podložnikov so povzročili ukrepe, ki so na podlagi izkušenj ščitili pred najnevarnejšo od vseh nalezljivih bolezni. Tako so stopili v veljavo predpisi Pest-Reglementa. Toda neupoštevanje predpisov je bolezen gnalo nezadržno naprej. Ustanove in ukrepi so imeli pomanj- kljivosti, ki so se pokazale za bolj nezdrave kot sama stiska, ki jo je povzročila bolezen. Zapore so še posebno ogrozile zdravje v zaprtih krajih, kjer so tamkajšnje čete pogosteje obolevale in tako širile tisto bolezen, pred katero naj bi va- rovale. Strah pred nevarnostjo okužbe, ki je povzročil vse te ukrepe, je mnoge bolnike oropal nujne nege in oskrbe ter pre- prečeval medsebojno pomoč; nenazadnje so ti ukrepi vplivali tako na trgovino in promet kot tudi na obrt – pokopali so blaginjo posameznika in oropali tisoče zaslužka…« deželami zaviral promet in trgovino ter tako do neke mere povzročal stagnacijo gospodarstva in s tem ne- zadovoljstvo ljudi. Slednje, ki je izviralo tudi iz ne- učinkovitega zdravstvenega sistema in splošnega nezaupanja do oblasti, je večkrat preraslo v nemire. Jasno je, da je bil temeljni namen normativa z dne 27. februar 1806 predvsem delovati pomirjevalno na ljudi, ki naj bodo bogaboječi in naj ne spreminjajo svojih siceršnjih življenjskih navad. Trditev, da bole- zen ni nekaj novega in neznanega, je imela prav tako pomirjevalen namen. Ljudje naj bi verjeli, da oblasti razmere obvladajo in da bolezen morda le ni tako ne- varna, kot se je sprva zdelo. Prvi zaščitni ukrep cesarja Franca I. je bil leta 1830 vzpostavljeni vojaški kordon na meji z Rusijo, ki je sprva veljal za uspešnega, saj se je širitev bo- lezni začasno ustavila.16 Znotraj meja Habsburške monarhije je kolera prvič izbruhnila na vzhodu Ga- licije spomladi leta 1831, zato je dal cesar za zaščito zahodne Galicije in ostalih delov države vzpostaviti vojaška zdravstvena kordona na rekah Visli in San, ki pa širjenja bolezni nista uspela zadržati. Tudi tretji in četrti kordon, ki sta pred Galicijo ščitila severni in jugozahodni del Ogrske – desni breg Donave, sta se izkazala za neučinkovita, ko je drugo žarišče izbruha bolezni znotraj monarhije hitro postala celotna Ogr- ska.17 Ko so 13. junija 1831 zabeležili prvi primer ko- lere na Ogrskem, so oblasti poleg že obstoječih dveh vojaških kordonov ob reki San do njenega izliva v Vislo in vzdolž meja Moravske in Šlezije, ki sta šči- tila avstrijske dežele pred okuženo Galicijo, vzposta- vile še verigo vojaških kordonov za zaščito dežel pred kolero z madžarske strani.18 Zaradi pojava kolere v severnih madžarskih komitatih je cesar ukazal vzpo- stavitev zdravstvenega kordona, ki bi se priključil že vzpostavljenemu vojaškemu kordonu proti Galiciji, le-ta se je začenjal pri izlivu reke San v Vislo in po- tekal do ogrske meje. Nanj je ukazal hitro priključi- ti že obstoječe deželne mejne kordone (Zoll-Linie) proti Ogrski, in sicer na mejah Moravske, Spodnje Avstrije, Notranje Avstrije, Kranjske in avstrijskega Primorja. Deželne mejne kordone so preoblikovali v zdravstvene kordone, katere so zasedle vojaške enote in kjer so se vzpostavile zdravstvene ustanove.19 Iz- gradnja obrambnega sistema zdravstvenih kordonov, ki so se začenjali ob moravski meji z Galicijo, se je to- rej nadaljevala ob spodnjeavstrijski, notranjeavstrij- ski, kranjski in avstrijsko-primorski meji z Ogrsko.20 16 Illyrisches Blatt, 1. 10. 1831, št. 40, str. 157, »Über die Auf- hebung der Sanitäts-Cordone gegen die Cholera«; Laibacher Zeitung, 7. 6. 1831, št. 45, str. 461. 17 Illyrisches Blatt, 1. 10. 1831, št. 40, str. 157, »Über die Aufhe- bung der Sanitäts-Cordone gegen die Cholera«. 18 Prav tam, str. 157–159. 19 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, št. 16142. 20 Laibacher Zeitung, 19. 7. 1831, št. 57, str. 226–227; Birkner, Die bedrohte Stadt, str. 22. 82 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–92 2022 Ogrska v ozračju strahu in negotovosti V Habsburški monarhiji je za Kranjsko neposre- dno najbolj nevarno žarišče kolere predstavljala Ogr- ska. Epidemija se je začela junija 1831 v mestu Tisza Ujlak ob zgornji Tisi, v komitatu Ugocser, odkoder so jo vzdolž reke Tise razširili splavarji soli.21 Do sredi- ne julija je bolezen dosegla reko Donavo, do začetka septembra so bili okuženi tako rekoč že vsi deli Ogr- ske.22 Epidemija je dosegla višek med 13. junijem in 27. septembrom, ko je v 2269 madžarskih krajih in mestih za kolero zbolelo 218.183 ljudi in jih od tega 87.391 umrlo.23 Samo v mestu Pešti je med julijem in septembrom od približno 3700 obolelih umrlo 1648 ljudi.24 Skupno je v letih 1831/1832 na Ogrskem z 8.750.000 prebivalci za kolero obolelo 435.330 ljudi oziroma 5 % celotne populacije in jih od tega 188.000 umrlo. Mortaliteta je bila 43%.25 O dogajanju na Ogrskem je ljubljanski gubernij obveščala dunajska združena dvorna pisarna. Glavna problema, ki sta trla ogrske oblasti, sta bila pomanj- kanje zdravnikov in nepoznavanje narave bolezni, kar je bilo sicer značilno za večino okuženih držav in območij. Poleg velikih razdalj in slabih prometnih povezav je zdravnike ovirala tudi preprosta miselnost ljudi. Kmečko prebivalstvo je praviloma bolj zaupalo nasvetom duhovščine in bilo mnenja, da jim zdrav- niki in oblast prikrivajo resnico o bolezni. Odraz ne- moči in strahu ogrskega podeželskega prebivalstva v času epidemije je bil denimo kmečki upor, tako imenovani kolera felkeles, v katerem je sodelovalo kar 45.000 ljudi.26 17. julija 1831 so izbruhnili nemiri tudi v Pešti. Z uporom so začeli študentje, ker so jim zaradi epide- mije začasno prekinili študij in se v velikem številu zbrali pri mostu čez Donavo. Povod so bile govorice, da v Pešti vse od prekinitve povezave z Budo na de- snem bregu Donave, ko so oblasti zaprle most, kolere v mestu ni več in da ljudje obolevajo za neko dru- go boleznijo. Zato so študentje od oblasti zahtevali zdravstvene prepustnice, ki bi jim omogočile vrnitev domov. Ker jim oblasti niso ugodile, so se odpravili na most z namenom, da ga prečkajo, pri čemer se jim je pridružila še množica radovednežev in brezdelne- žev. Oblasti so jim naposled prehod dovolile in most med Pešto in Budo znova odprle. Medtem ko so se študentje mirno razšli, pa je ostala množica začela z izgredi. Opustošenje se je končalo z razbitimi šipami javnih in zasebnih zgradb, nekaj izropanimi točilni- cami ter popolnim uničenjem stavbe karantene. Me- 21 Eckstein, Die epidemische Cholera, str. 13. 22 Jankovich, Die epidemische Cholera, str. 101. 23 Jovin, Epidemija kolere, str. 26. 24 Eckstein, Die epidemische Cholera, str. 26. 25 Lukács, Az 1831–1832 évi magyarországi kolerajárvány, str. 131 (za prevod se zahvaljujem Evi Lengyel). 26 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2371. stne oblasti so za vzpostavitev reda in miru na pomoč poklicale vojsko, ki je množico razgnala, pri čemer je bilo sedem ljudi ubitih, več ranjenih ter okoli dvesto ljudi zaprtih.27 Del javnosti na Kranjskem, pri čemer je bila ve- čina ljudi seveda izvzeta, je imel o epidemiji kolere na Ogrskem možnost izvedeti iz časopisov Laibacher Zeitung in Illyrisches Blatt. Njuni članki so opisova- li potek epidemije, obveščali o naraščajočem številu obolelih in umrlih ter opisovali iskanje učinkovite- ga zdravila. Medtem ko je Illyrisches Blatt objavljal bolj problemske in poučne članke o koleri, so ljudje v časopisu Laibacher Zeitung lahko našli zbirne podat- ke o obolelih in umrlih za večino okuženih držav in večjih mest, objavljene gubernijske okrožnice, ozna- nila deželne zdravstvene komisije in cesarjeva ura- dna pisma. Sklop člankov Pisma iz Pešte (Briefe aus Pesth) prikazuje ozračje strahu in negotovosti, ki je vladalo na ulicah Pešte. Ljudje so v mestnih lekarnah preventivno prekomerno nakupovali najrazličnejša zdravilna sredstva in preparate, kolera in zdravilo za- njo pa sta postala osrednji temi tako pouličnih govo- ric kot tudi razprav in debat v gledališčih, kavarnah, pivnicah in gostilnah (Auf allen Strassen, im Theater, in allen Kaffeh-, Wein- und Bierhäusern, wurde nur über zwei Dinge abgehandelt; das erste war die Cholera selbst, und das zweite die Präservative; ein Jeder hatte andere Recepte, und ein Jeder glaubte im Besitz des Be- sten zu seyn…). Govorilo se je o posameznih smrtnih primerih in o domnevno vrtoglavih številkah umrlih med večinoma revnejšimi sloji. Vsesplošno psihozo je Georg von Klepetz opisal kot kulminacijsko točko največjega strahu (Kulminations-Punkt der höchsten Angst).28 Zdravstveni kordon na kranjsko-hrvaški meji ... bolezen že dalje bližje prihaja. Kakor se je bila po Ogrskem razširila, so naš ljubi cesar hitro začeli skrbeti, tudi Kranjce in Korošce te nesreče obvarovati; zato je na hrvaški meji veliko soldatov, ki nobenega človeka ne pu- ste skozi, kateri, kakor pri kugi, ni 20 dni na kontumazii pridržan, zato da se zagotovo ve, da ne bo v našo deželo bolezni zanesel...29 Kranjski obrambni sistem proti koleri leta 1831 je bil, kot že rečeno, del širših notranjih državnih obrambnih ukrepov za zaščito avstrijskih dežel pred širitvijo kolere z Ogrske. Obstoječi sistem carinskih nadzornih postaj in mejnih kordonov (Zoll Cordons Linie) so po celotni meji z Ogrsko preoblikovali v 27 Laibacher Zeitung, 2. 8. 1831, št. 61, str. 241. 28 Illyrisches Blatt, 8. 10. 1831, št. 41, str. 163–164, »Aus Pesth«; Illyrisches Blatt, 22. 10. 1831, št. 43, str. 169–172, »Neuere Notizen über die Cholera«; Illyrisches Blatt, 29. 10. 1831, št. 44, str. 173–174, »Neuere Notizen über die Cholera«. 29 Potočnik, Potrebno poduzhenje sa kmeta, v nagovoru. Glej: Studen, Prva slovenska knjižica o obrambi pred kolero, str. 183–184. 83 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–922022 zdravstvene kordone, pri čemer so na njih povečali število vojakov. Za notranjeavstrijsko kordonsko lini- jo so poleg že obstoječega mejnega kordona uporabi- li štiri dodatne bataljone. S strani Dvornega vojnega sveta (Hofkriegsrath) je bilo poveljujočim generalom v deželah zaukazano, da mora imeti vojska natančen pregled nad celotno mejno črto in da mora skrbeti za nepretrganost kordona ter v ta namen imenovati po- sebnega komandanta. Deželni stanovi so bili obveza- ni sodelovati pri logistični podpori vojske, kot je bila na primer gradnja vojaških stražarnic.30 Na kranjsko- -hrvaški meji so za potrebe zdravstvenega kordona nameravali uporabiti tam že obstoječi bataljon pod poveljstvom Seldenhofna, ki je sicer tvoril varnostni kordon proti roparjem in razbojnikom v novome- škem okrožju.31 Pri prvih ukrepih v prvi polovici julija 1831, ki jih je ukazala dunajska Centralna zdravstvena dvorna komisija, najprej še ni šlo za popolno zaporo prome- ta med Ilirijo in Ogrsko oziroma med Kranjsko in Hrvaško ter Primorjem. V carinskih uradih na meji (Gränzzollamt) v Jesenicah na Dolenjskem, Metliki in Sv. Matiji (Gornji Rukavac), torej na edinih dovo- ljenih vstopnih mestih na Kranjsko s hrvaške strani, so sprva izvajali le čiščenje živine in prekajevanje po- šte.32 V tej zvezi se še posebej omenja kraj z mitni- co Sv. Matija, kamor je istrsko oz. pazinsko okrožje poslalo svojega okrožnega komisarja. Tu so namreč prekajevali pošto, ki je prihajala z Reke in je izvirala tudi iz že okuženih predelov, kot sta bila Banat in Temišvar.33 Organizacija zdravstvenih kordonov v monarhi- ji je temeljila na sodelovanju tako vojaških kot tudi civilnih oblasti. Vojaške oblasti so določile koman- danta kordona, kateremu so bili podrejeni vsi pazniki (Grenzaussichtsposten). Poleg vojaškega komandan- ta so enakopravno soodločali okrožni komisarji in okrajne gosposke.34 Pri vzpostavitvi kranjskega kor- dona so poleg okrožnih organov sodelovale tudi ca- rinske oblasti. Ker je bilo za vzpostavitev in delova- nje celotnega mejnega obrambnega sistema potrebno zagotoviti precejšnje število ljudi, so se kadrovsko oprli na že obstoječi sistem obmejnih carinskih nadzornikov in nadzornikov za trgovino s tobakom (Gränzzoll- und Tabak gefälls Aufsichts Postirungen); ti državni uradniki so bili sicer podrejeni Kameralni upravi posrednih davkov.35 Posadka, ki je nadzirala 30 Stražarnice oziroma »čardaki« (Czartaguen, Tscartaken) na visokih lesenih nogah so stale v razdalji nekaj kilometrov ena od druge, med njimi so patruljirale straže. V: Borisov, Od ra- nocelništva, str. 81. 31 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, št. 16560, 16561. 32 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, št. 16034. 33 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, št. 16033. 34 Rannegger, Die Cholera in der Steiermark, str. 74–75. 35 Cameral-Gefällenverwaltung je začela delovati z letom 1830, mejo, je bila tako sestavljena iz 209 tako imenovanih »dohodkovnih nadzornikov«36 (Gefällsaufseher) in mejnih strelcev (Gränzjager) ter 307 vojakov iz mej- nega kordona,37 ki so bili že prej dodeljeni obmejni carini in posebnim pobiralcem davka na tobak. Veči- na »dohodkovnih nadzornikov« in mejnih stražnikov je bila odsluženih vojakov.38 Mejna črta, ki je potekala od Jesenic na Dolenj- skem do Reke (ogrsko Primorje), je morala biti v celoti nadzorovana, tudi v težje dostopnih in preho- dnih predelih. Za nadzor celotne meje je bilo pred- videnih 516 ljudi, večinoma, kot že rečeno, odsluže- nih vojakov. Pojavljalo se je mnenje, da je učinkovit nadzor fizično nemogoče izpeljati, četudi bi šlo za vojake redne vojske. Poleg tega bi jih zaradi neneh- ne straže lahko bila naenkrat aktivna samo polovi- ca. Kljub pomislekom so se dejavnosti nadaljevale, odposlanstvo treh okrožnih komisarjev je obiskalo Kostanjevico, Metliko in (Ilirsko) Bistrico, da bi v dogovoru z mejnimi carinskimi uradniki in v stiku z okrajnimi gosposkami začelo izvajati predpisane ukrepe. V ta namen so prepotovali in pregledali ce- lotno mejno črto. Okrožnim komisarjem so bili do- deljeni posebni uradniki (Gefällsbeamte), ki so zaradi poznavanja terena in lokalnih razmer razporejali do- hodkovne nadzornike. Da bi mejno črto od Jesenic do Reke lažje nadzorovali, jo je Kameralna uprava posrednih davkov razdelila v štiri odseke, za katere so bili odgovorni okrožni komisarji. Prvi odsek, ki je bil pod nadzorstvom komisarja za potrošnino (Ver- zehrungssteuer) Donatija iz Krškega, je potekal od Jesenic do Luže pri Metliki, drugi del od Luže do Kostela je nadzoroval Joseph Walmisberg iz Novega mesta, pomočnik inšpektorja za tobak,39 za tretjega od Kostela do Babnega polja je bil odgovoren mitni- čar Fleischmann iz Babnega polja, za zadnji odsek, ki se je končal na Reki, pa mitničar Pober iz mitnice Sv. Matija. Zadnji, četrti odsek, ki se je večinoma na- leta 1831 se imenuje k.k. Vereinigte Cameral-Gefällen-Verwal- tung. Med drugimi sta ji bila podrejena Urada za obmejno carino in davek od soli oz. Provis. Commerzial-Gränz-Zoll und Salz-Aufschlags-Aemter v Jesenicah in Metliki, od katerih je vsak zaposloval pet uradnikov (pobiralca davka, kontro- lorja, pisarja, praktikanta in paznika). Pobiralec davka v Je- senicah je bil Alois Seitz, v Metliki Leopold Gapp. Pomožni uradi za obmejno carino, davek od soli in ogrsko tridesetnino (Gränz-Zoll-Salz-Aufschlags und zugleich ungarische Dreyssi- gst-Subsidialämter) so upravljali pobiralci davka s pomočjo enega lokalnega paznika in so bili posejani vzdolž meje z Ogrsko oz. Hrvaško še v Kostanjevici, Vinici, Osilnici, Ra- dovici, Gabrjah, Luži, Pobrežju, Gribljah, Poljanah ob Kolpi, Travi, Babnem polju in Kermačini (Schematismus, str. 49–51; Vilfan, Pravna zgodovina, str. 375). 36 Lahko tudi finančni stražniki, omenjeni v: Granda, Bosanski roparji, str. 174. 37 Kot posebna vojaška organa sta leta 1831 s sedežem v Ljub- ljani in Novem mestu delovala oddelka za vojaški mejni kor- don (k.k. Militär-Gränz-Cordons-Abtheilung). Schematismus, str. 52. 38 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, št. 16034. 39 Taback Gefällen Inspectorat Adjunkten. 84 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–92 2022 Odsek zdravstvenega kordona v delu snežniškega gospostva (SI AS 14, Reg.VIII, f. 36 (35/Chol2), št. 609). 85 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–922022 hajal v pazinskem okrožju, so potegnili vse do morja zato, ker Istra ni imela carinskih nadzornikov (Zoll- aufsicht). Zaprli so mitnice Radovica, Kermačina in Gaberje.40 Pomemben del zdravstvenega kordona je pred- stavljalo snežniško območje, ker je bilo zaradi gozd- natosti in hribovitosti slabo prehodno, poleg tega pa tudi odmaknjeno od tovornih in prehodnih poti ter slabo upravljano s strani snežniškega gospostva, torej že sicer slabo nadzorovano.41 Domnevamo lahko, da je bilo prav to območje najbolj »ugoden« del kordona za ilegalne prehode. Da so omenjeni odsek zato še posebno skrbno zastražili, lahko posredno sklepamo iz pogodbe v zvezi z lesom za gradnjo in za preskr- bo s kurjavo stražarnic na snežniškem območju med Okrožnim uradom Postojna in gospostvom Snež- nik.42 Pogodba je po eni strani omogočala brezplač- no dobavo stavbnega lesa iz snežniških gozdov za samo gradnjo stražarnic vzdolž kordona in preskrbo z lesom za 63 kordonskih vojaških postav na podro- čju Babnega polja, po drugi pa uporabo potrebnega zemljišča. V zameno je gospostvo po ukinitvi kordo- na smelo obdržati na javne stroške obdelan les, ki je bil sicer uporabljen za gradnjo stražarnic.43 Deželna zdravstvena komisija je gesto snežniškega gospostva označila za »domoljubno« in jo je javno oznanila v časopisu Laibacher Zeitung, kjer je obenem »zaradi težkih časov in s tem povezanih velikih državnih izdatkov«, pozvala na posnemanje podobnih dejanj (Die provinzial-Sanitäts- Commission findet sich ver- pflichtet, diese patriotische uneigennutzige Handlung mit dem lebhaftesten Wunsche zur öffentlichen Kenntniss zu bringen, dass sie in dem gegenwartigen drangvollen Zeitpunkte, wo die Staatsverwaltung mit unermessli- chen Auslagen für die Sanitäts-Anstalten in Anspruch genommen wird, eine reichliche Nachahmung finden möge).44 Na poziv sta se odzvala Joseph Rudesch, la- stnik gospostva Ribnica, ki je za potrebe zdravstve- nega kordona daroval stavbni les za gradnjo petnaj- stih stražarnic45 in Auerspergovo gospostvo Poljane s sedežem v Predgradu, ki je prispevalo material za gradnjo stražarnic v tistem delu kordona, ki je preč- kal gospostvo.46 Zdravstvena zapora se je od Kranjske proti zaho- du nadaljevala po meji avstrijskega Primorja z ogr- skim Primorjem vse do Voloske na vzhodni istrski obali. Sprva se je kopno zavarovalo pred Kvarnerski- mi otoki, kasneje so preventivne ukrepe izvajali tudi tam in za otoke ustanovili posebno otoško zdravstve- 40 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, št. 16034. 41 Glej: Kačičnik Gabrič, O kmečkih dolgovih nekoliko drugače. 42 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol 2), št. 609. 43 Prav tam. 44 Laibacher Zeitung, 23. 8. 1831, št. 67, str. 265. 45 Laibacher Zeitung, 11. 10. 1831, št. 81. 46 Laibacher Zeitung, 6. 9. 1831, št. 71, str. 238. no komisijo v mestu Krku na otoku Krku, podrejeno pazinskemu okrožnemu uradu in centralnemu zdrav- stvenemu magistratu v Trstu. Na otoke so poslali okrog 200 vojakov. Ladje so lahko pristajale izključno v tržaškem pristanišču, kjer je bila urejena karantena. Vojska je bila nameščena tudi v istrskih mestih, med drugim v Piranu in Kopru. Obramba proti koleri se je iz Voloske nadaljevala po morju vzdolž vzhodne in zahodne obale Istre vse do Trsta in sicer z ladjami, ki so krožile po dodeljenem območju.47 Kranjski kordon je Ilirska deželna zdravstvena komisija na podlagi ukaza združene dvorne pisarne in ob soglasju Vojaškega poveljstva v Zagrebu ter obeh deželnih komisij v Gradcu in Trstu, razpustila 26. septembra 1831. Istočasno sta bila razpuščena tudi štajerski in primorski kordon.48 Odslej je Kranj- sko pred kolero varoval vojaško dodatno okrepljeni zdravstveni kordon na Hrvaškem, ki je potekal vzdolž rek Drave in Ilove in je tako pred kolero z Ogrske in Slavonije neposredno varoval predvsem Hrvaško. Na kranjsko-hrvaški meji so se odpravile vse omejitve in se je vzpostavilo normalno stanje. Promet je bil torej tako kot prej podvržen nadzoru obstoječih carinskih in tridesetninskih zakonov, policijskim predpisom glede prehajanja meje in zdravstvenim normam, ki so pri prehodu meje še predpisovale predložitev zdrav- stvenih spričeval.49 Nezakonito prehajanje čez kordon, primer Jožefa Petelina Posebno skrb so za oblasti predstavljali tihotapci, ki so uhajali čez kordon in s tem rušili učinkovitost obrambe proti koleri. Ljubljanski okrožni urad je na problem opozoril okrajne gosposke in jih pozval k sodelovanju pri iskanju in prijetju tujcev brez doku- mentov.50 Da so se oblasti na Kranjskem dokaj na- tančno držale predpisov in da so tudi posamezni kraji v notranjosti dežele vzpostavili sistem zdravstvenih straž, ki so preverjale potne liste tujcev, kaže primer Jožefa Petelina. Slednjega je vrhniška krajevna straža ustavila v noči s 15. na 16. avgust 1831. Ker je bil zadnji vpis v njegovem potnem listu z dne 1. oktobra 1830 in sicer za potovanje iz okrajne gosposke Idrija na Reko, je straža domnevala, da je Petelin na poti z Reke skrivoma prešel zdravstveni kordon. Ker naj bi v vmesnem času delal pri kamnoseku Francu Josti v Ljubljani, je okrajna gosposka Bistra pri Vrhniki zaprosila ljubljanski magistrat, naj preveri Petelinov »alibi«.51 Namen vzpostavitve zdravstvenega kordona je bil v tem, da so oblasti želele, da se ozemlje Kranjske in 47 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 421. 48 Laibacher Zeitung, Amts-Blatt 13. 10. 1831, št. 123, str. 1047. 49 Laibacher Zeitung, 27. 9. 1831, št. 77, str. 309. 50 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 270. 51 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 254. 86 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–92 2022 Koroške pred boleznijo z Ogrske čim bolj zapre, in da se določijo prehodna mesta, ki omogočajo le strogo nadzorovane najnujnejše premike ljudi in izmenjavo blaga. Prehodi čez kordon so bili dovoljeni izključno na uradno določenih in zgrajenih prehodnih mestih. Prečkanje kordona kjerkoli drugje je veljalo za kazni- vo dejanje. Cesar je v kazenskem zakoniku določene prestopke v zvezi s kugo razširil tudi za kolero. Jav- nost so o prepovedi prehodov čez kordon in sank- cijah zoper kršitelje obveščali duhovniki s prižnic.52 Za prestopke v zvezi z ukrepi proti nalezljivim boleznim in kaznimi zanje je veljal patent cesarja Franca I. z dne 21. maja 1805.53 Patent je določal, da je v okraju, kjer se ne upošteva grozeče nevarnosti nalezljive bolezni, človek kriv težkega prestopka, če njegovo delovanje namenoma ali po pomoti povzroči oziroma širi bolezen. Med glavne prestopke so šteli prekoračitev kordona, izognitev karanteni, zanemar- janje poklicne dolžnosti zaposlenih pri obrambnih institucijah in prikrivanje nevarnosti. Za nedovoljen prehod kordona je veljalo, če je nekdo iz območja, proti kateremu je bila odrejena karantena oziroma obrnjen kordon, le-tega prešel po suhem po prepovedanih poteh ali po morju skozi ne- dovoljena pristanišča; če je nekdo prečkal kordon, ne da bi se prijavil pri pristojnih uradnikih; če se je nek- do iz sumljivega območja vtihotapil v deželo in pri nadaljevanju poti navedel napačen kraj svojega izvo- ra; če so se ljudje s pomočjo vodnikov izogibali glav- nih poti; če je kdo uporabljal ponarejene dokumente oziroma izdane na drugo ime.54 Kot kaznivo dejanje je veljalo tudi ponarejanje zdravstvenih oziroma ka- rantenskih prepustnic, ki so imele značaj javne listi- ne.55 S slednjimi so ljudje na prehodih čez kordon dokazovali, da prihajajo iz neokuženih območij ali da so karanteno že prestali ter so okolici nenevarni. Straža je lahko nemudoma streljala na vsakogar, ki je nedovoljeno prečkal kordon in se ni odzval na njena opozorila.56 Kazen za nedovoljen prehod kor- dona je bila od 5 do 10 let težke ječe, pri posebnem naklepu ali ponovitvi prestopka se je ječa lahko po- daljšala tudi do 20 let. Če je kdo prečil kordon iz neprevidnosti in ni povzročil nobene škode, so kazen znižali.57 Prestopki v zvezi s karanteno so zajemali dejanja, če je kdo zapustil karanteno predčasno, če se je nekdo pred iztekom karantene brez karantenskega nadzor- 52 Gesetze und Verordnungen, Dvorni dekret z dne 27. avgusta 1831, št. 2525. 53 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 147: Patent Franca I. z dne 21. maja 1805. Laibacher Zeitung, 15. 9. 1831, št. 74, str. 909. 54 Prav tam. 55 Sanitäts- und Contumaz- Pass – zdravstveno dovoljenje za prehod meje. Podoben pomen imajo izrazi Gesundheitspass, Gesundheitscertificat in Gesundheits-Zeugniss kot zdravstveno spričevalo. Gesetze und Verordnungen, Dvorni dekret z dne 26. julija 1831, št. 2522. 56 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 147. 57 Prav tam. stva približeval zdravim osebam in se z njimi družil, če je oseba prevažala ljudi in blago brez potrebnih zdravstvenih spričeval in prepustnic, če je kdo v kra- jih v bližini kordona nudil zatočišče ljudem in blagu brez zdravstvenih spričeval ali brez dovoljenj gospo- ske, če je kdo skrival in prikrival stvari, ki morajo biti sicer podvržene čiščenju, ter nazadnje vsi v karante- ni zaposleni uradniki in posli, ki z nevestnim delom povzročajo nevarnost.58 Kaznivo je bilo tudi zanemarjanje poklicne dolž- nosti zaposlenih v obrambnih institucijah: če uradnik prijav in poročil ni naznanjal naprej; podkupljivost zdravnikov oziroma prejemanje daril za že plačano delo; če je tisti, kateremu je bil zaupan nadzor oseb in blaga, le-te spuščal v deželo po nedovoljenih poteh ali po dovoljenih poteh pa brez prestajanja karantene, ali pa je ljudi spuščal iz karantene pred iztekom pred- pisanega časa; kdor je neupoštevajoč predpise izdajal zdravstvena spričevala in če sta se uradnik ali zdrav- nik pri svojem delu izpostavila možnosti okužbe in nista šla sama v karanteno. Kršitve iz koristoljubja so bile kaznovane s težko ječo od 10 do 20 let, navadne kršitve z ječo od 5 do 10 let. Kazen za prikrivanje kršitev je bila ječa od 1 do 5 let, pri posebno težkih okoliščinah podkupovanja pa težka ječa od 5 do 10 let.59 V primeru večjega, že nevarnega širjenja kršitev zaščitnih ukrepov proti nalezljivi bolezni, je začasno nastopil sistem naglih sodb oziroma Standrecht; da- nes bi spadal pod izjemno kazensko pravo, ki omo- goča ostrejšo kaznovalno politiko. Zaradi nevarnosti prekrškov v zvezi s prekoračitvijo kordona in izogni- tvi karantene je bila po tem pravu kazen smrt z ustre- litvijo. Začetek in prenehanje veljave naglih sodb sta se morala javno oznaniti.60 Tako je bilo z dekretom združene Dvorne pisarne javno naznanjeno, da se s 1. oktobrom 1831 končuje obdobje veljave naglih sodb v vseh deželah monarhije, ki imajo vzpostavlje- ne kordone, in se spet uveljavlja kazni po obstoječi kazenski zakonodaji.61 Sistem rastelov62 in karanten ...Vsa obleka, kar je ima kdo na sebi, in vse blago se očedi in očisti, da se kdo od nas od kaj takega bolezni ne naleze...63 Prva dva uradna prehoda čez kordon oziroma ra- stela sta bila 1. avgusta 1831 odprta v Jesenicah na Dolenjskem in v Metliki.64 Gradnja tretjega rastela 58 Prav tam. 59 Prav tam. 60 Prav tam. 61 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2262. 62 Urejeni prehodi čez kordon, kjer se je lahko trgovalo. 63 Potočnik, Potrebno poduzhenje sa kmeta, v nagovoru. 64 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 122; Kobal, O koleri na Kranjskem, str. 78. 87 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–922022 v Brodu na Kolpi je zakasnila, tako da so ga odprli 15. avgusta.65 Izbira Jesenic in Metlike se zdi smisel- na, saj sta oba kraja ležala na meji ob najpomembnej- ših cestnih povezavah Kranjske s Hrvaško oziroma Ogrsko. Jesenice so ležale ob Zagrebški komercialni in poštni cesti, ki je iz Ljubljane tekla prek Zidanega Mostu in Novega mesta do Bregane. Skozi Metliko pa se je vila Karlovška glavna, komercialna in po- štna cesta, ki se je sicer začenjala v Novem mestu.66 Pomen čimprejšnjega odprtja obeh rastelov je bil v tem, da je bil zaradi siceršnje zapore meje z Ogrsko oviran promet na meji s Hrvaško in ogrskim Pri- morjem. Da bi ublažili motnje prometa, medtem ko je tekla gradnja rastelov, so preko zasilnih rastelov na Kranjsko spuščali le večje transporte pšenice in živine.67 Osnovna naloga rastelov je bila, da se v imenu varnosti javnega dobrega (Sicherheit des öffentlichen Wohls) vsako čezmejno izmenjavo oseb, blaga in stvari podvrže karanteni. Na rastelih v Jesenicah in Metliki se je tekoče odvijal le promet z »nestrupono- snim« blagom, ki je bilo oproščeno karantene in bilo tako lahko takoj prevzeto na drugi strani meje. Kaj ni bilo »struponosno«, je določal patent Marije Terezije z 2. januarja 1770 v 24. členu. Seznam, ki je vseboval 238 vrst različnega blaga, od poljskih pridelkov, pre- hrambenih izdelkov in zdravil do surovin in različnih obrtnih izdelkov, je bil objavljen tudi v časopisu Lai- bacher Zeitung.68 Dunajska združena dvorna pisarna je poudarjala, da naj se na rastelih odvija samo nujna trgovina in naj se omejijo ostale poslovne dejavnosti, saj se ravno preko njih širi kolera.69 Pri obeh rastelih se je trgovalo predvsem z žitom in soljo, ki sta bila oproščena karantene, ter z živino, katero so »očistili« tako, da so jo do vratu potopili v vodo. Tržni dnevi so bili natančno določeni in sicer v Jesenicah in Me- tliki ob ponedeljkih in četrtkih, v Brodu na Kolpi pa ob ponedeljkih in petkih. Za transporte žita, ki so jih s Hrvaške do Jesenic vozili z ladjami po Savi, je rastelska inšpekcija po pregledu tovora odredila pre- tovarjanje na čakajoče prazne ladje, ki so potem na- daljevale pot po reki navzgor v notranjost Kranjske. Prav tako so se na rastelu morali zamenjati gonjači živine.70 Rasteli so imeli poleg trgovske tudi družbeno funkcijo, saj so povezovali prebivalstvo z obeh strani meje, ki sicer kordona ni smelo prečkati. Ljudem so bili ob določenih urah (med deveto in dvanajsto do- poldne in med drugo in peto popoldne) omogočeni pogovori, pri čemer so se, da se ne bi okužili, lahko pogovarjali le z določene razdalje. Vse dejavnosti pri 65 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 122, 314. 66 Holz, Razvoj cestnega omrežja, str. 26. 67 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 122. 68 Laibacher Zeitung, 4. 8. 1831, št. 62, str. 245–246. 69 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2326. 70 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 122, 312, 314. rastelu so se smele dogajati izključno podnevi oziro- ma pri dnevni svetlobi, od sončnega vzhoda do sonč- nega zahoda.71 Karantenske komplekse,72 ki so predstavljali dru- go preventivno institucijo na meji, so zgradili ob ra- stelih. Če je rastel opravljal kontrolo prometa in nad- zoroval ter omejeval trgovino, je karantena poskrbela za vse tiste ljudi in blago, ki so jih v rastelu zaradi suma, da prihajajo z območij, okuženih s kolero in če potniki niso mogli dokazati nasprotnega, zavrni- li. Karanteno so tako morali prestajati vsi ljudje, ki so prihajali z okuženih oziroma sumljivih območij, in pa tisti, ki niso imeli zdravstvenih spričeval. Prav tako je moralo v karanteno vse »struponosno« blago in razne stvari (Contumazbehandlung von Personen, Waaren und Effecten). Med »struponosno« blago so med drugim spadali perje, žima, ščetine, lan, kono- plja, surove kože, kožuhi, usnje, platno, vrvi in bom- baž.73 Strupeno blago so v karanteni čistili. Poseben primer je bila ovčja volna, ki sicer ni spadala med ne- varno, a so jo vseeno v karanteni prezračevali tudi do 20 dni.74 V času največje nevarnosti je prestajanje karan- tene trajalo 40 dni, kar pa so postopoma zniževali.75 26. septembra 1831 je Ilirska deželna zdravstvena komisija javno oznanila zmanjšanje karantene na kordonih proti Ogrski in Galiciji z 20 na 10 dni.76 10. oktobra je cesar ukazal za celotno monarhijo z iz- jemo Lombardsko-beneškega kraljestva in Primorja, znižanje karantene na 5 dni.77 Poslopja za potrebe karantene so morali tako v Jesenicah kot tudi v Metliki na novo zgraditi, saj primernih prostorov ni bilo na razpolago. Oblasti so se pri vzpostavljanju karantene srečevale s številnimi težavami, še posebej ker so morali karanteno zgra- diti v zgolj 14 dneh.78 Gradnja karantene v Jeseni- cah je nadvse nujna (Der Bau der Kontumaz-Anstalt von Jessenitz ist von der äussersten Dringlichkeit), je ljubljanski okrožni urad o nujnosti takojšnje grad- nje karantenskega kompleksa v Jesenicah obvestil ljubljanski magistrat.79 Poleg tega, da je na kraju sa- mem primanjkovalo stavbnega lesa, v bližnji okolici 71 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 122, 312. 72 Kontumac (Contumac, Contumazanstallt) pomeni zdravstve- no zaporo proti širjenju nalezljivih bolezni. Karantena izhaja iz besede quarantina iz quaranta, štirideset, ker je sprva trajala 40 dni. Je varnostna zapora oziroma osamitev in zdravniško opazovanje potnikov iz okuženih krajev in s tem del sistema zdravniških ukrepov proti širjenju nalezljivih bolezni. Prva karantena je bila organizirana leta 1375 v Dubrovniku. 73 Kobal, O koleri na Kranjskem. 74 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 795, 1661, 2177. 75 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2177. 76 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 599. 77 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2413; Laibacher Zeitung, 18. 10. 1831, št. 83, str. 338. 78 Laibacher Zeitung, 4. 8. 1831, št. 62, str. 246. 79 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 249. 88 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–92 2022 prav tako ni bilo na voljo usposobljenih obrtnikov oziroma delavcev, ki so jih bili zato prisiljeni iskati v oddaljenih krajih.80 Tesarje so tako najeli v Ljubljani in njeni okolici. Tesarskemu mojstru Koširju, je kot podizvajalcu del uspelo v 24 urah najti 30 tesarjev, od katerih jih je nazadnje delo sprejela le polovica. Kot najpogostejše razloge za zavrnitev dela pri grad- nji karantenskih poslopij so tesarji navajali svojo bo- lezen, bolezen otrok in žene, nosečnost žene, večje število otrok, delo na kmetiji, pomanjkanje primerne obleke in že sklenjene delovne pogodbe. Visok od- stotek odklonitev dela pri gradnji karanten s strani obrtnikov kaže na to, da med njimi to delo ni ve- ljalo za priljubljeno. Koširju je ljubljanski magistrat pomagal pri najemanju transportnih čolnov, s ka- terimi so po Savi navzdol do Jesenic prepeljali ves potreben stavbni les, orodje in najeto delovno silo, poleg tesarjev in mizarjev tudi ključavničarje in lon- čarje.81 Iz seznama inventarja za jeseniško karanteno je razvidno, da je lahko karanteno naenkrat prestajalo približno 40 ljudi, ki so bili preskrbljeni z osnovnimi potrebščinami za spanje in higieno. Prostori karan- tene so bili namreč opremljeni s slamnjačami, miza- mi, stoli in klopmi, obešalniki za obleke, svečniki in »usekavniki«, nočnimi posodami, umivalniki, vrči za 80 Laibacher Zeitung, 4. 8. 1831, št. 62, str. 246. 81 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 246, 247, 249. vodo, prevlekami za slamnjače, brisačami, blazinami in odejami.82 Celoten postopek »čiščenja« v rastelih in ka- rantenah je bil za ljudi in blago brezplačen. Ker so zaposleni v rastelih sprva storitve zaračunavali in je obstajala nevarnost, da bodo s tem nadaljevali, je zdravstvena oblast ljudi preko okrožnic in časopisja opozarjala na brezplačno naravo vseh dejavnosti v rastelih in karantenah. Prepovedali so pobiranje pri- stojbin, že pobrani denar je bilo treba vrniti. Da so bili z okrožnico seznanjeni tako zaposleni kot tudi javnost, je morala viseti ob vhodih v rastel in karante- no, v pisarnah, skupnih prostorih zaposlenih, kolibah in v skladiščih za blago. Za obveščanje širših plasti prebivalstva, so okrožnico objavili tudi v deželnem, slovenskem jeziku.83 Rastel in karantena v Metliki Kako so bila organizirana obmejna prehodna me- sta čez kordon oziroma kakšen je bil videti celoten kompleks rastela in karantene, izvemo iz ohranje- nega načrta za obe instituciji pri Metliki.84 Rastel in karanteno so zgradili na levem bregu mejne reke Kolpe, ob mostu čez Kolpo. Stavbe obeh ustanov so bile v glavnem nanizane na obeh straneh Karlovške komercialne ceste, ki je tako tekla po sredi komple- ksa in bila pri rastelu zaprta z dvojno zaporo. Med osmimi uslužbenci karantene so bili direktor Joseph Sterger, zdravnik Ignaz Lashan, duhovnik Andreas Tschebashegg, pisar Alois Pauer, čuvaja blaga Martin Lovich in Jochan Horlitschegg ter slugi za čiščenje blaga Wenzl Kottek in Joseph Zollner.85 Iz hrvaške smeri, torej iz smeri vstopa na Kranj- sko, potem ko se je prišlo čez most, se je ograjeni pro- stor rastela nahajal na desni strani. Področje rastela je bilo razdeljeno na tri dele. Tri četrtine njegove celotne površine je zavzemal z gosto pleteno ograjo obdan prostor za živino, ki so jo na prodaj pripeljali iz Hrvaške. Ostalo je bilo namenjeno dvema približno enako velikima ograjenima prostoroma. V prvega je bil vhod s Karlovške ceste in sicer je bila tu stavba Urada za tridesetnino (Dreysigstamt), ki je ob dežev- nem vremenu služila za zavetje hrvaškim trgovcem in kupcem. Izhod iz tega dela v drugi del – del za živino – je bil namenjen tistim, ki so že opravili na- kup in odkoder se je gnalo živino do reke Kolpe, kjer so jo pognali v vodo, tako da je živina bredla vzdolž rečnega brega ob Kolpi navzgor in tako »očiščena« 82 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 602. 83 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 196, 200; Laibacher Zeitung, 9. 8. 1831, št. 63, str. 737–738. 84 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (Chol 2), št. 586: Situations Plan des Emplacements der Contumac Ge- bäude an der Kulp-Brücke bey Möttling. 85 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (Chol 2), št. 586: Personal – Standes Ausweis von k.k. Contumaz Directi- on zu Möttling. Oznanilo (SI ZAL LJU 489, f. 348, fol. 200). 89 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–922022 prišla višje ob reki spet na breg v ograjen prostor na levi strani Karlovške ceste. Med obema rastelskima ograjenima prostoroma sta bili postavljeni dvojni pregradi obiti z deskami, nekaj manj kot dva metra oz. en seženj oddaljeni druga od druge, ki sta pregra- jevali izpostavljen del s strani ceste. Med pregradama sta bila od enega konca do drugega postavljena dva lesena žlebova podprta s stebri, po katerih so spuščali žito in sol iz izpostavljenega dela proti notranjosti rastela. Tu so izločili vse tuje, »strupene« stvari, s ka- terimi je bilo prepovedano trgovati. V razdalji treh čevljev, torej skoraj enega metra od notranje pregrade je bila v tretjem, zaprtem (neizpostavljenem) delu ra- stela še tretja zapornica, pri kateri je sluga čistil manj- še stvari, pripeljane s Hrvaške. V istem delu rastela je bila stavba, v kateri so prekajevali pisma, v njej je imel sicer sedež metliški carinski urad. Spodnji del istega dela je bil nekoliko dvignjen in namenjen kranjskim kupcem živine. Iz dvignjenega dela so izbirali živali in sklepali posle s spodaj stoječimi prodajalci.86 Od rastela dalje, na desni strani ob Karlovški cesti, je stala stavba siceršnje mitnice, ki je bila preurejena v prostore za direktorja karantene in karantenskega zdravnika. Nekdanjo karantensko stavbo levo od Karlovške ceste so spremenili v stražarnico, ob njej 86 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (Chol 2), št. 586. je stal lesen hlev. Območje karantenskega komple- ksa se je, nekoliko odmaknjeno stran od Karlovške ceste, nahajalo na njeni levi strani. S Karlovško cesto je karantenski kompleks v obliki polkroga povezova- la stranska cesta. Za prestajanje karantene je bilo na voljo sedem lesenih stavb obdanih z visokim zidom. Prve tri so bile namenjene imenitnejšim potnikom in so bile znotraj razdeljene na več manjših prostorov, tako da so bili moški in ženske ločeni, prav tako je imela svoje prostore tudi njihova služinčad. Koliba številka 5 je bila bolniška, po potrebi pa so v zdrav- stvene namene preuredili še katero od preostalih treh hiš, v katerih so sicer karanteno prestajali navadni potniki. Poleg karantenskih stavb za ljudi so zgradili hleve za konje in vozove ter skladišča za blago. Pose- ben prostor so uredili za prezračevanje blaga. Zadnji dve stavbi, ki sta služili za bivališče zaposlenih, nji- hovim skupnim prostorom, sušilnici in prekajevalni- ci ter karantenski gostilni, sta bili od karantenskih kolib popolnoma ločeni, tako da med ljudmi, ki so prestajali karanteno, in zaposlenimi ni prihajalo do stikov. Slednji so imeli tudi svoj posebni vhod. V bli- žini kompleksa je stala karantenska kapela ter hiša in gospodarska poslopja v lasti gospe Schebenig, poštne mojstrice iz Metlike.87 87 Prav tam. Rastel in karantena v Metliki (SI AS 14, Reg. VIII, f. 36 (Chol2), št. 586). 90 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–92 2022 Posledice vzpostavitve zdravstvenega kordona Posledice zapore meje med Kranjsko in Hrvaško so se odražale po eni strani predvsem v motnjah in upočasnitvi trgovine, po drugi pa v oviranju pretoka ljudi. Oblasti so ljudem svetovale, naj nepotrebno tr- govanje in druge poslovne dejavnosti omejijo, saj se s širjenjem trgovskih stikov širi tudi kolera.88 Posledice vzpostavitve zdravstvenega kordona niso neposredno prizadele samo ekonomije obmejnega pasu, ampak so jih občutili tudi v notranjosti Kranjske. Policijska poročila okrajnih oblastev postojnskega okrožja raz- krivajo javno mnenje (Stimmung und der herrschende Geist) med drugim tudi o trgovini, sejmih in gibanju cen živil.89 Tako so na območju okrajnega oblastva Snežnik od siceršnjih sedmih letnih sejmov izpeljali tri. Prva dva sejma, v Šentvidu v ponedeljek po pra- zniku sv. Jerneja (29. avgust) in na Blokah v četrtek, 29. septembra, nista uspela, ker je v času prvega še obstajal zdravstveni kordon, v času drugega pa so od ukinitve kordona pretekli le trije dnevi, tako da iz Hrvaške še niso utegnili prignati živine.90 S področja vipavskega okrajnega oblastva so poročali o zvišanih cenah živine, kar so pripisovali oteženi prodaji iz Hr- vaške in Ogrske. Razvidno je, da so se ljudje bolezni bali, govorili so o utesnjujočem strahu pred kolero (die gespannte Furcht von der Brechruhr). Kordon naj sicer ne bi povzročil padca v gospodarstvu in trgovini, čeprav je nanju z delno zaporo in omejevanjem sla- bo vplival (Eine Abnahme in der Agrikultur, Industrie, im Kommerze erfolgte nicht. Aber der bevorstehende Sanität-Kordon dürfte diesfalls Einflüss äussern. Ohne Nachtheilen kann es nicht abgeben, wenn angränzende Ortschaften, Kreise, Provinzen im frühere freie Verkehre theils erschwert, theils abgespert werden).91 V okrajnem oblastvu Hasberg so zaznali povišanje cen soli in po razpustitvi kordona pocenitev žita in drugih ži- vil.92 Okrajno oblastvo Senožeče je ugotovilo porast trgovskih dejavnosti po sprostitvi prometa s Hrva- ško.93 V okrajnem oblastvu Postojna je trgovina za- radi kordona utrpela nekaj škode, po njegovi ukinitvi so cene občutno padle.94 Iz skupnega poročila za po- stojnsko okrožje je torej razvidno, da so slabši promet z živino poleg splošnemu pomanjkanju denarja pri- pisali predvsem zdravstvenemu kordonu na meji. Po celotnem okrožju so opazili, da so cene žita in drugih živil po ukinitvi kordona občutno padle, trgovina pa je postala živahnejša (Das Komerz schien nach der Auf- 88 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), št. 2326. 89 SI AS 117, Kresijski urad Postojna, fasc. 13, št. 256. 90 SI AS 117, Kresijski urad Postojna, fasc. 13, št. 256: policijsko poročilo okrajnega oblastva Snežnik. 91 Prav tam, policijsko poročilo okrajnega oblastva Vipava. 92 Prav tam, policijsko poročilo okrajnega oblastva Hasberg. 93 Prav tam, policijsko poročilo okrajnega oblastva Senožeče. 94 Prav tam, policijsko poročilo okrajnega oblastva Postojna. hebung der gegen Ungarn und Kroatien bestandenen Sanitäts Cordons in etwas aufzuleben).95 Zaključek Zdravstveni kordon proti nalezljivim boleznim je bil na kranjsko-hrvaški meji leta 1831 vzpostavljen zadnjič. Ob naslednjih epidemijah kolere, kar pet jih je zajelo tudi Kranjsko, jih oblasti niso več vzpostav- ljale. Poleg tega, da le-ti niso uspeli zadržati širjenja kolere, so za oblasti predstavljali izredno velik orga- nizacijski in gmotni napor, ki pa vložene energije in sredstev ni upravičil. Na bližnjo in daljno okolico je zapora meje delovala slabo zaradi oviranja siceršnjega pretoka ljudi in blaga, kar je zaviralno vplivalo pred- vsem na trgovske tokove in posledično zviševalo cene živil. Ker so oblasti ob naslednjih epidemijah kolere spremenile taktiko obrambe in opustile drag sistem zapore meja, velja obramba proti prvi epidemiji ko- lere v monarhiji hkrati tudi za zadnje prakticiranje klasičnega boja proti kugi značilnega za 18. stoletje. VIRI IN LITERATURA ARHIVSKI VIRI SI AS – Arhiv Republike Slovenije AS 14 – Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII AS 117 – Kresijski urad Postojna AS 1079 – Zbirka normalij SI ZAL – Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana LJU 489, Mesto Ljubljana, splošna mestna regi- stratura (Reg. I) ČASOPISNI VIRI Illyrisches Blatt, 1831. Laibacher Zeitung, 1831. LITERATURA IN OBJAVLJENI VIRI Birkner, Othmar: Die bedrohte Stadt, Cholera in Wien. Wien: Franz Deuticke, 2002. Borisov, Peter: Od ranocelništva do začetkov znan- stvene kirurgije na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: SAZU, 1977. Brunton, Deborah: Dealing with disease in po- pulations: public health, 1830–1880. Medicine Transformed. Health, Disease and Society in Europe 1800–1930 (ur. Deborah Brunton). Manchester: The Open University, 2004, str. 180–207. Eckstein, Friedrich: Die epidemische Cholera beobach- tet in Pest in den Monaten Juli, Avgust, September 1831. Pest und Leipzig, 1832. 95 Prav tam, policijsko poročilo za postojnsko okrožje. 91 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–922022 Gesetze und Verordnungen in Justi-Sache für die Deu- tschen Staaten der Oesterreichischen Monarchie von den Jahren 1831–1834. Granda, Stane: Bosanski roparji se ne bojijo voja- kov in financarjev. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja, 1800–1860 (ur. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova re- vija, 2001, str. 174. Grmek, D. Mirko: Sanitarni kordon Vojne krajine. Medicinska enciklopedija, knjiga V. Zagreb: Leksi- kografski zavod, 1961, str. 457–460. Holz, Eva: Razvoj cestnega omrežja na Slovenskem ob koncu 18. in v 19. stoletju. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 1994. Jankovich, Anton: Die epidemische Cholera in den Ja- hren 1817–1832, ihre Wesen, Ursache und rationelle Behandlung. Ofen, 1832. Jovin, Slavko: Epidemija kolere v Vojvodini 1831 godi- ne. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1978. Kačičnik Gabrič, Alenka: O kmečkih dolgovih nekoli- ko drugače. Problem servitutnih pravic na posestvu Snežnik. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih dru- štev Slovenije, Arhiv Republike Slovenije, 2004 (Knjižnica Kronike, 8). Kobal, Franc: O koleri na Kranjskem. Zbornik Slo- venske Matice, XIII, 1911, str. 61–158. Koblar, Anton: O človeški kugi na Kranjskem. Iz- vestja muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 1, 1891, str. 39–55. Krebs, Gertraud: Die geographische Verbreitung der Cholera in ehemaligen Oesterreich-Ungarn in den Jahren 1831–1916. Veröffentlichung aus dem Gebiete des Volksgesundheitsdienstes. LV Band, 6. Heft, Berlin 1941. Lukács, Ágnes: Az 1831–1832 évi magyarországi kolerajárváni néhány jellegzetessége. Communi- cationes ex bibliotheca historiae medicae hungarica. Budapest, 1966. Potočnik, Blaž: Potrebno poduzhenje sa kmeta, kako naj sam sebe in svoje ljudi te strashne bolesni obvaruje, v vprashanjih in odgovorih. Ljubljana, 1831. Rannegger, Harald: Die Cholera in der Steiermark 1831–1836. Diplomarbeit, Karl-Franzens-Uni- versität Graz, 1989. Schematismus für das Laibacher Gouvernements-Ge- bieth im Königreiche Illyrien, Laibach, 1831. Studen, Andrej: Prva slovenska knjižica o obrambi pred kolero. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja, 1800– 1860 (ur. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2001, str. 183–184. The Cambridge World History of Human Disease (ur. Kenneth F. Kiple). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1994, str. 645–648. Vilfan, Sergij: Pravna zgodovina Slovencev. Ljublja- na: Slovenska matica, 1996. Žontar, Josip: Zapora proti kugi v Karavankah v letih 1713–1716. Prispevek k zgodovini blagovnega pro- meta in organizacije trgovine na Slovenskem v 18. stoletju. Tržič: Muzejsko društvo, 1957 (Knjižnica Muzejskega društva v Tržiču, 1). Z U S A M M E N F A S S U N G Der Abwehrmechanismus zum Schutze vor der ersten Choleraepidemie in Europa In den dreißiger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts wurde Europa von der ersten Epidemie der asiati- schen Cholera heimgesucht. Zu einer Verbreitung der Krankheit von Asien nach Europa kam es aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach infolge der Intensivierung von Handels- und Verkehrsbeziehungen zwischen dem englischen Imperium und Indien bzw. infolge der englischen Expansion nach Osten. Der auftre- tenden Choleraepidemie in der Nähe der Habsbur- germonarchie im Jahr 1830 begegneten die Staats- behörden mit sofortiger Grenzsperre. Zu diesem Zweck errichteten sie zunächst ein System von Sani- tätskordons an der Ostgrenze der Monarchie, später, als die Krankheit in der Monarchie selbst ausbrach, auch Kordons zum Schutze einzelner Länder. Das gesamte Abwehrsystem beruhte auf den Vorschrif- ten und der Praxis, die in den vorangegangenen Jahr- hunderten bei der Pestbekämpfung herausgebildet worden waren. Das krainische Abwehrsystem gegen die Cho- lera aus dem Jahr 1831 war Bestandteil umfassen- derer innerer staatlicher Vorbeugungsmaßnahmen der österreichischen Länder gegen das Eindringen der Cholera Morbus von Ungarn her. Der Ausbau von Sanitätskordons, die an der mährischen Gren- ze zu Galizien begannen, vollzog sich weiter entlang der niederösterreichischen, innerösterreichischen, krainischen und österreichisch-küstenländischen Grenze zu Ungarn. Der Gesundheitskordon an der krainisch-kroatischen Grenze wurde aufgrund der Zusammenarbeit der Kreis- und Zollbehörden mit dem Militärkommando errichtet. Von der großen Bedeutung der Grenzsperre selbst zeugen hohe Stra- fen für Übertretungsfälle und standgerichtliche Ur- teilssprüche. Der Fall der Quarantäneanstalt Metlika (Möttling) zeigt, dass eine straffe Organisationsform solcher Komplexe einerseits nur den Verkehr mit Grundnahrungsmitteln und Vieh zuließ, während sie andererseits die Bewegung der Personen stark einschränkte. Zum letzten Mal wurde 1831 ein Gesundheits- kordon gegen die Ansteckungskrankheiten an der krainisch-kroatischen Grenze errichtet. Bei den da- rauffolgenden Choleraepidemien – gleich fünf such- 92 KATARINA KEBER: KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI, 79–92 2022 ten auch Krain heim – stellte die Habsburger Macht keine Gesundheitskordons mehr auf. Außer der Tat- sache, dass diese die Verbreitung der Cholera nicht aufzuhalten vermochten, erforderten sie von den Behörden einen riesigen Organisations- und Geld- aufwand, der die darauf verwendeten Energien und Mittel nicht rechtfertigte. Infolge des behinderten Austauschs von Personen und Waren wirkte sich die Grenzsperre nachteilig auf die nähere und weitere Umgebung aus. Behinderungen im Handelsverkehr hatten eine Preissteigerung zur Folge. Da die Behör- den beim Ausbruch der nächsten Choleraepidemien die Abwehrtaktik änderten und das teure System der Grenzsperren aufhoben, gilt die Abwehr gegen die erste Choleraepidemie in der Habsburgermonarchie zugleich auch als die letzte Anwendung der klas- sischen für das 18. Jahrhundert charakteristischen Pestbekämpfung. 93 2022 IZREDNA ŠTEVILKA UDK 616-036.21:616.921.5(497.451)"1918" Katarina Keber dr., višja znanstvena sodelavka, ZRC SAZU, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana E-pošta: katarina.keber@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2586-4983 Epidemija v šolskih klopeh* Primer španske gripe leta 1918 v osrednjeslovenskem prostoru IZVLEČEK Pandemija španske gripe velja za eno največjih katastrof v človeški zgodovini. V obdobju 1918–1920 naj bi po vsem svetu zbolelo 500 milijonov ljudi in jih po zadnjih ocenah umrlo med 50 in 100 milijoni. Drugi val pandemije gripe je med septembrom in decembrom 1918 prizadel tudi prebivalstvo v slovenskih deželah. Obolevanje učencev in učiteljev za špansko gripo v Ljubljani in v širšem osrednjeslovenskem prostoru je eno od redkih dogajanj v zvezi z epidemijo, ki je do določene mere dokumentirano in ki neposredno kaže na veliko razširjenost influence. Delež učencev, ki so manjkali pri pouku, je bil v posameznih šolah različen, in sicer v razponu 16–75 % vseh šolarjev. Edini jav- nozdravstveni ukrep na Kranjskem med epidemijo je bilo enomesečno zaprtje vseh šol najprej v Ljubljani, nato pa še v najbolj prizadetih okrajih na Dolenjskem. KLJUČNE BESEDE španska gripa, otroci, šola, pandemije, epidemije, prva svetovna vojna ABSTRACT EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES. A CASE OF SPANISH FLU IN 1918 IN CENTRAL SLOVENIA The Spanish flu pandemic is considered one of the greatest catastrophes in human history. In the period of 1918– 1920, the disease infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide and, according to the most recent data, resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million. The second wave of the flu pandemic also reached the population of the Slovenian provinces between September and December 1918. Morbidity rates among pupils and teachers in Ljubljana and the wider central Slovenian area are one of the rare aspects of the epidemic that have to some degree been documented and directly point to the wide prevalence of influenza. The rates of school absenteeism varied between 16% and 75% of all pupils. The only public health measure to be implemented in Carniola during the epidemics was a one-month closure of all schools, first in Ljubljana and then in the most severely affected districts in Lower Carniola. KEY WORDS Spanish flu, children, school, pandemics, epidemics, First World War * Prispevek je ponatis iz Kronike 65, 2017, št. 1, str. 67–76. 94 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–102 2022 Pandemija španske gripe velja za eno največjih katastrof v človeški zgodovini.* V obdobju 1918– 1920 naj bi po vsem svetu zbolelo 500 milijonov lju- di in jih po zadnjih ocenah umrlo med 50 in 100 milijoni oz. od tri do pet odstotkov takratnega sve- tovnega prebivalstva.1 Bolezen se je skoraj povsod po svetu v manj kot letu dni razširila v treh valovih. Na severni polobli so jo prvič zaznali spomladi in poleti 1918, drugi val bolezni je zajel ves svet jeseni tega leta, zadnji val pa je sledil spomladi 1919. Umiranje za špansko gripo v drugem valu bolezni je doseglo skoraj vse prebivalstvo in je po vsem svetu trajalo le šest mesecev.2 Za Avstro-Ogrsko velja ocena, da je epidemija influence zahtevala okrog 260.000 življenj civilistov.3 Drugi, smrtonosni val bolezni se je v mo- narhiji začel septembra 1918, višek je dosegel okto- bra in novembra, upadel pa je decembra.4 Epidemija gripe, ki jo imajo nekateri za edino pravo naslednico epidemije kuge oz. črne smrti v 14. stoletju, je prese- netljivo hitro poniknila v ozadje kolektivnega spomi- na na prvo svetovno vojno kot ena zadnjih kratkih epizod ob njenem zaključku. Dr. Josip Tičar jo je v poljudni knjigi Boj nalezljivim boleznim leta 1922 označil za »resno tovarišico azijatske kolere in kuge, ki sta tudi v vserazsežnih pohodih ogrožali najširše množice narodov«.5 Da je španska gripa močno prizadela tudi prebi- valstvo v slovenskih deželah, pričajo množični zapisi umrlih v mrliških knjigah skorajda vseh slovenskih župnij. Smrtonosni drugi val španske gripe je sloven- sko območje kot del Avstro-Ogrske prav tako zajel jeseni, septembra 1918, in do konca decembra poča- si izzvenel. Različni sočasni posredni viri razkrivajo veliko razsežnost obolevanja za to boleznijo in po- gosto smrtnost med obolelimi. Zdravstveni statistič- ni podatki, ki bi pričali o obolevnosti in umrljivosti ljudi med epidemijo španske gripe na Kranjskem, Štajerskem, Koroškem in v Avstrijskem primorju, niso znani, prav tako v tem trenutku ne poznamo niti grobih ocen o prizadetosti civilnega prebivalstva po posameznih deželah. Doslej edina na virih uteme- ljena slovenska raziskava je diplomska naloga Nine Kalčič, ki je s pomočjo mrliških knjig ljubljanskih župnij obravnavala mesto Ljubljana. Ugotovila je, da so v kranjskem glavnem mestu med septembrom 1918 in februarjem 1919 zaradi španske gripe umrli 403 ljudje (275 zaradi gripe in 128 zaradi pljučni- ce). Umrljivost in verjetno tudi obolevnost je bila tu največja oktobra, ko je umrlo 63,77 % vseh umrlih * Članek je bil v krajši obliki predstavljen na 38. zborovanju Zveze zgodovinskih društev Slovenije – Zgodovina izobra- ževanja, na Ravnah na Koroškem, 30. 9. 2016. 1 Johnson, Mueller, Updating the Accounts, str. 105; Opdycke, The flu epidemic of 1918, Introduction. 2 Crosby, Influenza, str. 810. 3 Schmied-Kowarzik, War Losses (Austria-Hungary), str. 8. 4 Prav tam. 5 Tičar, Boj nalezljivim boleznim, str. 140. za špansko gripo v mestu. Pomembnejše ugotovitve Nine Kalčič so, da so bili v Ljubljani najbolj prizade- ti mladi odrasli in otroci, da je umrlo več žensk kot moških in da izstopajo ženske med 21. in 30. letom starosti ter otroci do 10. leta starosti.6 Ugotavljanje števila umrlih iz mrliških knjig otežuje različno poimenovanje te bolezni. V mrliški knjigi ljubljanske župnije sv. Jakoba tako najdemo na primer še špansko influenco, špansko bolezen, hripo, špansko hripo, influenco pneumonio in pljučnico, ki je bila pogost neposredni vzrok smrti pri influenci.7 V mrliški knjigi Deželne bolnice v Ljubljani je med vzroki smrti navedena pljučnica kot zaplet influence, in sicer z izrazoma pneumonia »španska« in pneu- monia bilateralis »španska«.8 Uradnega števila obolelih in umrlih ne poznamo, saj influenca na podlagi avstro-ogrske zdravstvene zakonodaje ni spadala med tiste hude nalezljive bo- lezni, katerih posamezne primere so morali zdravniki prijavljati in podatke sistematično zbirati. V takrat veljavnem Zakonu o zabrambi in zatiranju prenosnih bolezni z dne 14. aprila 1913 oz. v njegovem prvem členu, ki je določal prijavo primerov sedemnajstih nalezljivih bolezni, influence ne najdemo.9 Že med epidemijo, 19. oktobra 1918, pa je avstro-ogrsko mi- nistrstvo za ljudsko zdravje (Ministerium für Volks- gesundheit) uvedlo obvezo prijave tudi za vse prime- re pljučnic.10 Vprašljivo je, ali so ob koncu vojne in skorajšnjem razpadu države te podatke po deželah res začeli zbirati. Vsekakor na ta način zbranih po- datkov še nismo našli. Do leta 1918 je namreč influenca povsod po svetu veljala za nenevarno nalezljivo bolezen. Iz 19. stole- tja poznamo vsaj tri epidemije, in sicer v letih 1830– 1831, 1833 in prvo natančneje dokumentirano v le- tih 1889–1890. Čeprav naj bi zadnja v Evropi terjala vsaj 250.000 življenj, torej več kot v vseh epidemijah kolere v 19. stoletju skupaj, je bila ta bolezen nevar- na predvsem za ostarele ljudi. Zato se je influen- ce oprijel sloves sicer neprijetne, vendar nenevarne bolezni.11 Raziskovanje epidemije španske gripe leta 1918 v slovenskem prostoru poleg pomanjkljive in slabo ohranjene zdravstvene dokumentacije otežujejo za- pletene geopolitične razmere v letih 1918/1919, saj je epidemija izbruhnila ob koncu prve svetovne vojne, 6 Kalčič, Španska gripa ali »Kadar pride žito v dobro zemljo […]«, str. 30–31; Kalčič, Španska gripa, str. 259. Po ocenah Mihe Likarja naj bi španska gripa na območju Jugoslavije terjala več kot 60.000 življenj, gl. Likar, Usoda nalezljivih bolezni, str. 126. 7 NŠAL, ŽA Ljubljana – Sv. Jakob, Matične knjige, M 1891– 1920 (prepis). 8 NŠAL, duplikat mrliške knjige ljubljanske deželno-bolniške duhovnije, Duhovnijski urad deželne bolnice v Ljubljani, leto 1918. O pljučnici kot vzroku smrti obolelih za gripo gl. Zu- panič Slavec, Razvoj javnega zdravstva, str. 227. 9 Državni zakonik, let. 1913, št. 67. 10 ARS, AS 33, reg. 17/8, fasc. l. 1918, št. 35067. 11 Crosby, Influenza, str. 809. 95 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–1022022 ko je hkrati prišlo do razpada Avstro-Ogrske in na- stanka najprej Države SHS in nato Kraljevine Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev. »Skoraj vse učiteljstvo in mladina je obolela za to boleznijo«12 Obolevanje učencev in učiteljev za špansko gripo je eno od redkih dogajanj v zvezi z epidemijo, ki je do določene mere dokumentirano in ki neposredno 12 ZAL, LJU 401, OŠ Zvonka Runka v Ljubljani, Kronika ši- šenske osem razredne deške ljudske šole v Ljubljani, šolsko leto 1918/1919, MF 25. kaže na veliko razširjenost te bolezni vsaj v osred- njeslovenskem prostoru. Nasploh so bili šolarji tudi drugod po svetu med najbolj prizadetimi skupina- mi.13 O množičnem obolevanju učencev različnih šol v Ljubljani in v drugih kranjskih okrajih izvemo iz različnih virov. Poleg ohranjenih ljubljanskih šolskih kronik za vojna leta prve svetovne vojne vsebujejo podatke o epidemiji tudi natisnjena glasila nekaterih šol in ohranjena šolska dokumentacija.14 Dokumen- 13 Phillips, Influenza pandemic, str. 4. 14 Otroci so za špansko gripo obolevali tudi v drugih slovenskih deželah kot npr. na Koroškem učenci prevaljske šole, kjer je špansko gripo prebolelo 26 otrok. Gl. Doberšek, Vpliv social- nih razmer, str. 95. Zakon z dne 14. aprila 1913 o zabrambi in zatiranju prenosnih bolezni (Državni zakonik za kraljevine in dežele, zastopane v državnem zboru, 1913). 96 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–102 2022 ti, ki pričajo o pojavu gripe med šolajočimi se otroki in mladino na Kranjskem, so ohranjeni tudi v fondu Deželne vlade v Ljubljani, pri čemer gre večinoma za poročila posameznih okrajnih glavarstev. Iz članka Zdravstvo v Ljubljani, ki je pravzaprav poročilo mestnega fizikata o zdravstvenem stanju ljubljanskega civilnega prebivalstva s konca oktobra 1918, je razvidno, da so zdravniki močno nalezljivost gripe najprej opazili prav med šolskimi otroki: »[…] Nalezljivost influence je jako velika, morda tako ve- lika, kot pri ošpicah, katero bolezen skoraj vsakdo v svojem življenju naleze. Ta nalezljivost se je pokazala pri sedanji epidemiji posebno med šolsko mladino, ko se je izhajajoče od enega obolenja razvilo med nje- govimi sošolci celo ognjišče ter so iskre razširjevale in raznašale kal bolezni med druge tako, da se je v najkrajšem času tekom par dni pokazalo na vsaki šoli hiter napredek okužbe. V par dneh primanjkovalo je skoraj v vsakem razredu srednjih in ljudskih šol večje število, do tretjine, oziroma polovice, otrok […].«15 V istem članku zasledimo, da je v zadnjih treh oktobr- skih tednih leta 1918 v Ljubljani za gripo zbolelo več tisoč oseb. Prevladovali so otroci do 10. leta, mladina od 10. do 20. leta in odrasli do 30. leta. Starejši so za influenco zbolevali le izjemoma.16 Prizadetost istih starostnih skupin ljudi glede obolevnosti za influen- co se, kot kažejo podatki Kalčičeve iz mrliških knjig, prenese tudi na umrljivost. Natančnejši podatki o razmerah v ljubljanskih šolah, ki jih je zbral ljubljanski mestni fizik (zdrav- nik) v začetku oktobra 1918, prav tako kažejo na ve- liko obolevanje med šolskimi otroki.17 Ker mu šole podatkov niso sporočile na poenoten način, izračun obolevnosti vseh šolskih otrok in dijakov ni mogoč. Izračunamo pa lahko delež obolelih otrok na ljub- ljanskih ljudskih šolah 2. in 3. oktobra 1918, saj poro- čilo za to vrsto šol vsebuje tudi podatke o številu vseh učencev v šolskem letu 1918/1919. Na ljubljanskih ljudskih šolah je bilo torej v prvih dneh oktobra bol- nih 1.252 učencev oz. 29,7 % vseh šolarjev (vseh je bilo 4.217). Delež učencev, ki niso obiskovali pouka, je bil v posameznih ljubljanskih šolah različen, in si- cer v razponu 16–75 % vseh šolarjev. Kljub temu da podatki18 za posamezne ljubljan- ske šole niso bili zbrani sistematično, je njihova obja- va smiselna, saj iz njih neposredno spoznamo dejan- sko množično obolevnost med epidemijo: - I državna gimnazija: 3. oktobra odsotnih 167 dijakov, v posameznih razredih polovica dijakov, sicer 16–20 %; - II državna gimnazija: 2. oktobra odsotnih 27 % dijakov, v II. c nad polovico, II. b in IV. tretjina dijakov, v vseh drugih razredih posamezni; 15 Slovenski narod, 31. 10. 1918, št. 256, str. 5. 16 Prav tam. 17 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, 1918, šk. 944, št. 33040, št. 33268. 18 Prav tam. - Nemška gimnazija: 3. oktobra v III. razredu od- sotnih 75 % (od 18 dijakov), na celem zavodu od- sotnih 30 dijakov od 142; - Moško učiteljišče: 3. oktobra odsotnih 32 dijakov, v II. letniku tretjina, v III. in IV. letniku nad polo- vico; - Mestni dekliški licej: 1. oktobra odsotnih 42 % gojenk; - Ljudska šola: odsotnih 44 % učencev. Ljudske šole 2. in 3. oktobra 1918: - I mestna deška šola: odsotnih 151 od 595 učencev (25,4 %); - II mestna deška šola: odsotnih 119 od 566 učen- cev in 3 učitelji (21 %); - III mestna deška šola: bolnih je 86 otrok od 217 in šolski vodja (39,6 %); - IV mestna deška šola: bolnih 44 od 226 (19,5 %); - Nemška mestna deška šola: bolnih 107 otrok od 237 (45,1 %) in 2 učiteljici; - Mestna slovenska dekliška šola: odsotnih 286 de- klic od 975 (29,3 %) in bolnih 8 učiteljic; - Mestna nemška dekliška šola: bolna 302 otroka od 631 (47,9 %) in 5 učiteljic; - Šišenska deška ljudska šola: odsotnih 63 dečkov od 354 (17,8 %); - Šišenska dekliška ljudska šola: odsotnih 94 deklic od 416 (22,6 %). 4. oktober: - C. kr. obrtna šola: na obeh oddelkih je obolela približno tretjina gojencev; - Trgovski tečaj na mestnem dekliškem liceju: izo- stalo je 15 deklic; - Uršulinske šole, notranje in zunanje: v posa- meznih razredih je izostala polovica oz. tretjina otrok, v ostalih razredih večje število deklic; - Šola v Lichtenthurnovem zavodu: v VII razredu odsotnih 16, v drugih razredih skupaj 55 otrok; - Šola nemškega šolskega kuratorija: bolni sta 2 učiteljici in 66 otrok; - Nemška privatna šola za dečke (realka): izostalo je 42 otrok od 143; - Šola nemškega Schulvereina v Sp. Šiški: odsotnih 16 otrok od 95. Prekinitev šolskega pouka Na Kranjskem je bil edini uradni javnozdravstve- ni ukrep v zvezi z množičnim obolevanjem za špan- sko gripo zaprtje šol oz. prekinitev pouka najprej v Ljubljani, nato pa tudi v drugih šolah. Čeprav je ča- sopisje o množičnem obolevanju šolajočih se otrok v Ljubljani pisalo že konec septembra,19 je ljubljanski mestni fizik 3. oktobra zaradi velikega obolevanja učencev in dijakov na podlagi že omenjene poizved- 19 Slovenski narod, 30. 9. 1918, št. 223, str. 5. 97 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–1022022 be odredil prekinitev pouka najprej v petnajstih ljub- ljanskih šolah, 5. oktobra pa še v dodatnih sedmih šolah. Pouk so prekinili najprej do 15. oktobra,20 nato je 12. oktobra ljubljanski mestni magistrat zaradi »razširjenega nastopa influence in dolgo trajajoče re- konvalescence obolelih« sporazumno s c. kr. Dežel- nim šolskim svetom odredil zaprtje vseh srednjih ter javnih in zasebnih ljudskih šol in vrtcev do vključno 3. novembra 1918.21 O prekinitvi pouka je poročalo tudi časopisje, kot npr. Slovenski narod in Učiteljski tovariš (Glasilo avstrijskega jugoslovanskega učitelj- stva): »Vse ljubljanske ljudske in srednje šole osta- nejo zaradi španske bolezni, ki se jako hudo širi po Ljubljani zaprte do vštevši 3. novembra.«22 Prav tako so na ljubljanskih obrtno-nadaljevalnih šolah začetek pouka zaradi »močno razširjene španske hripe« pre- stavili na 10. november.23 Pouka pa niso prekinili le v Ljubljani, ampak tudi v šolah drugih kranjskih okrajnih glavarstev. Tako so o množični obolevnosti v posameznih krajih Deželni vladi v Ljubljani poročala okrajna glavarstva, in sicer na podlagi podatkov posameznih šol. Okrajno gla- varstvo Črnomelj je poročalo za šoli v Bojancih24 in Metliki, kjer je 4. oktobra šolo obiskovala le še tretji- na učencev. Tu naj bi otroci za gripo obolevali še po- sebej množično, nekaj je bilo tudi težjih oblik bolezni s pljučnico. Zbolela sta dva učitelja in 20 učencev.25 Iz časopisja izvemo, da so bile šole v črnomaljski okolici 12. novembra še zaprte, saj je bil »pouk v doglednem času nemogoč […]«.26 S poukom so v tem okraju spet začeli 21. novembra.27 »Radi španske« so šole zaprli tudi v Krškem.28 Na veliko prizadetost celotnega območja Okraj- nega glavarstva Novo mesto kažejo tako časopisni članki kot tudi številna poročila o zaprtju tamkaj- šnjih šol. Pisci časopisnih člankov opažajo, da so v Novem mestu v začetku oktobra za gripo umirale predvsem ženske, v (Dolenjskih) Toplicah pa naj bi se bolezen širila najbolj med otroki in mlajšimi žen- skami. »Španska« se je širila tudi po oddaljenih ob- činah in vaseh. Kritični so bili do šolskih nadzorstev, ki so dopuščala, da otroci iz okuženih hiš nemoteno obiskujejo šolo.29 Iz Novega mesta so poročali, da je gripa pogosta in da v nekaterih družinah množično zbolevajo. Višji okrajni zdravnik dr. Ivan Vaupotič je poročal, da v visokih številkah obolevajo šolski otro- ci, primeri bolnih pa so tudi med gimnazijci. Zato 20 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, 1918, šk. 944, št. 33040, št. 33268; Sloven- ski narod, 3. 10. 1918, str. 4. 21 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, 1918, šk. 944, št. 34024. 22 Učiteljski tovariš, 18. 10. 1918, št. 22, str. 5. 23 Slovenski narod, 18. 10. 1918, št. 241, str. 3. 24 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, l. 1918, šk. 944, št. 32139. 25 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 33103. 26 Slovenski narod, 12. 11. 1918, št. 267, str. 4. 27 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 37496. 28 Slovenski narod, 31. 10. 1918, št. 256, str. 5. 29 Slovenski narod, 7. 10. 1918, št. 229, str. 5; 12. 10. 1918, št. 235, str. 4. je 7. oktobra zahteval takojšnje zaprtje gimnazije in ljudske šole.30 Gimnazijo so 9. oktobra zaprli najprej do 23. oktobra, nato so zaprtje podaljšali do 7. no- vembra.31 Pouk na deški ljudski šoli se je spet začel 11. novembra.32 Dr. Vaupotič je 10. oktobra v tem okraju zahteval še zaprtje šole v Sv. Petru pri Novem mestu (Otočcu), kjer je od 249 šoloobveznih otrok zbolelo kar 190 oz. 76,3 % učencev, oba kateheta in učiteljica.33 11. oktobra so zaprli tri šole v Šmi- helu pri Novem mestu. Tu je bilo na deški ljudski šoli bolnih 66 oz. 46 % učencev, na dekliški ljudski šoli 42 oz. 91 % in na meščanski šoli 40 oz. 42 % učencev.34 V štirirazredni ljudski šoli v Trebnjem je zdravnik ugotovil, da je od 322 šolarjev 34 % bolnih, pri obisku vsakega od njih pa se je prepričal, da so vsi zboleli za influenco.35 Šolo so 16. oktobra zaprli še v Žužemberku, kjer je v štirirazredni ljudski šoli od 346 učencev zbolelo 79 otrok,36 in v Vavti vasi, kjer je v I. razredu od 101 otroka zbolelo 66 šolarjev, v II. in III. razredu pa zaradi bolezni višjega učite- lja in učiteljice sploh niso imeli pouka.37 17. oktobra so zaprli šolo v Toplicah, kjer je za gripo zbolela več kot polovica vseh šolarjev.38 Dan kasneje so šolo za- prli še v Gabrjah v Občini Brusnice, in sicer zaradi pojava ne le gripe, temveč še škrlatinke in griže.39 V drugi polovici oktobra je sledilo zaprtje šol v Ore- hovici, Spodnji Nemški vasi, Selu, Zagradcu, Sto- pičah, Ambrusu, Dobrničah, Brusnicah, Hinju (pri Žužemberku), Beli Cerkvi, Soteski, Gornji Sušici in Žvirčah (pri Žužemberku).40 Šole so v novome- škem okraju zapirali še v začetku novembra, kot npr. v Mirni Peči, kjer je zaradi epidemije trpel pouk in je bil šolski obisk zelo nereden.41 Sledilo je zaprtje šole v Št. Lovrencu, kjer je zbolela tudi učiteljica, v Črmo- šnjicah, Dol. Karteljevem, kjer je za to boleznijo obo- lelo že 70 % šolo obiskujočih otrok, in v Prečni, kjer je »šolski obisk skrajno slab in pouk skoraj nemogoč postal«.42 Šole so zapirali tudi novembra, v Dvoru in v Podgradu so šoli zaprli 9. novembra, v Podgradu je k pouku prihajala le še desetina otrok.43 Prav tako so vse šole, vključno z gimnazijo, zaprli v Mariboru. V začetku oktobra so ugotavljali, da se bolezen še posebej močno širi v šolah. Do 5. oktobra 30 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 33231. 31 Dolenjske novice, 10. 10. 1918, št. 41, str. 163; 7. 11. 1918, št. 45, str. 179. 32 Dolenjske novice, 7. 11. 1918, št. 45, str. 179. 33 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 33781. 34 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 33780. 35 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 34073. 36 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 34563. 37 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 34564. 38 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 34862. 39 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 34863. 40 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 35446, 35447, 35448, 35527, 35528, 35529, 35668, 35912, 36039, 36040, 36041, 36042, 36043, 36044. 41 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 36445. 42 ARS, AS 33, 17/8, št. 36446, 36447, 36522, 36523. 43 ARS, AS 33, št. 36906, št. 36907. 98 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–102 2022 je v mariborski gimnaziji zbolelo 140 dijakov, v po- sameznih razredih so imeli po 20 bolnikov.44 Mari- borski mestni svet je 19. oktobra odločil, da se v vseh ljudskih in meščanskih šolah ter vrtcih pouk prekine vsaj do 27. oktobra.45 Časopisni članki razkrivajo, da so zaradi epide- mije šole zapirali tudi drugod, tako v naši bližnji kot tudi bolj oddaljeni soseščini. Tako so vse nemške in češke šole zaprli v Pragi (najprej med 7. in 20. okto- brom, kasneje do 4. novembra), začetek predavanj na praški univerzi pa se je prestavil na 21. oktober.46 V Budimpešti so šole »zaradi močne razširjenosti špan- ske bolezni« prav tako zaprli do 4. novembra.47 Du- najski župan je vse ljudske in meščanske šole zaprl 7. oktobra, v mestu pa so hkrati zaprli vsa gledališča in kine.48 V kontekstu epidemije španske gripe na Dunaju danes prevladuje mnenje, da so šole zaprli prepozno.49 V nekaterih mestih, kot npr. v Seckauu na Štajerskem, so šole ostale zaprte vse do novega leta.50 Učenci in učitelji so množično obolevali tudi v Gradcu, od koder so poročali o 40-odstotnem de- ležu bolnih učencev v nekaterih šolah, ponekod je zbolela kar polovica vseh učiteljev. Zato so v mestu od 9. oktobra šole najprej zaprli za tri tedne, potem podaljšano do 4. novembra. Glede na uradno objavo graškega mestnega sveta pa se je pouk v šolah začel šele z ukinitvijo vseh ukrepov proti gripi, in sicer v ponedeljek, 11. novembra. V Gradcu so bili tako za- prti vsi javni in zasebni vrtci, ljudske, meščanske in srednje šole, obrtne šole, verouk in vse plesne šole. Prepovedane so bile tudi predstave za otroke.51 O za- prtju šol so časopisi poročali še za Linz,52 Beljak53 in Trst, v slednjem so bile šole zaprte od konca oktobra in vsaj do 15. novembra.54 V Celovcu so bile šole za- prte vsaj do 4. novembra,55 zaprli pa so tudi obe ljud- ski šoli v Velikovcu.56 Šole so bile vsaj med 11. in 26. oktobrom zaprte tudi v Istri,57 v Zagrebu so jih zaprli 10. oktobra, dan kasneje tudi v Osijeku in Sarajevu.58 Šolski pouk pa je bil med prvo svetovno vojno prekinjan tudi iz drugih razlogov. Pouk v ljubljanskih šolah je bilo težko organizirati zaradi velike koncen- 44 Slovenski narod, 5. 10. 1918, št. 228, str. 5. 45 Grazer Tagblatt, 17. 10. 1918, str. 2; Marburger Zeitung, 20. 10. 1918, str. 2. 46 Grazer Tagblatt, 6. 10. 1918, str. 2; Slovenski narod, 12. 10. 1918, št. 235, str. 4; 19. 10. 1918, št. 243, str. 4. 47 Slovenski narod, 20. 9. 1918, št. 215, str. 3; 19. 10. 1918, št. 243, str. 4. 48 Grazer Tagblatt, 8. 10. 1918, str. 6. 49 Biwald et al., Spitäler, Lazarette, Hygiene, Wohlfahrt, str. 300. 50 Grazer Tagblatt, 12. 12. 1918, str. 2. 51 Grazer Tagblatt, 6. 10. 1918, str. 2; 10. 10. 1918, str. 2; 27. 10. 1918, str. 11; 10. 11. 1918, str. 7. 52 Grazer Tagblatt, 10. 10. 1918, str. 2. 53 Grazer Tagblatt, 17. 10. 1918, str. 2. 54 Slovenski narod, 12. 10. 1918, št. 235, str. 4; Grazer Tagblatt, 11. 10. 1918, str. 3; 15. 11. 1918, str. 2. 55 Grazer Tagblatt, 12. 10. 1918, str. 3; 18. 10. 1918, str. 2. 56 Grazer Tagblatt, 20. 10. 1918, str. 3. 57 Milovan Delić, Vijesti o španjolskoj gripi, str. 177–178. 58 Hutinec, Odjeci epidemije »španjolske gripe«, str. 231. tracije vojaštva v mestu. Iz šolskih kronik nekaterih ljubljanskih šol je razvidno, da so šole pouk v času vojne izvajale bodisi v manjšem delu šolskih prosto- rov bodisi v povsem drugih stavbah ali več stavbah naenkrat, in sicer po prilagojenih urnikih, saj je večja šolska poslopja zasedalo vojaštvo in vojaške bolnice.59 Pouk so ponekod prekinjali tudi zaradi drugih nalez- ljivih bolezni, kot npr. septembra 1918 zaradi griže in škrlatinke v nekaterih vaseh na Dolenjskem (Bi- ška vas, Zabrdje, Stan in Stara gora).60 Na Dunaju so med 14. decembrom 1918 in 7. januarjem 1919 zapr- li vse šole zaradi pomanjkanja premoga za kurjavo.61 Nazaj v šolo Za šolajoče se otroke pa se je svet med enomeseč- nimi prisilnimi počitnicami temeljito spremenil. Če so v začetku oktobra zapustili učilnice avstro-ogrskih šol, so se sredi novembra vrnili v šolske razrede nove jugoslovanske države. V času prekinitve pouka zaradi epidemije španske gripe se je končala prva svetovna vojna, razpadla je Avstro-Ogrska in nastala je Dr- žava SHS. Da pa je življenje kljub epidemiji burno teklo dalje, nam razkrivajo tudi šolske kronike. Šol- ska kronika ljubljanske osemrazredne deške ljudske šole v Šiški poroča, da se je mladina kljub zaprti šoli med epidemijo španske gripe 29. oktobra, dan pred razglasitvijo Narodne vlade v Ljubljani, skupaj z učitelji zbrala v šoli in se s šolsko zastavo udeležila slavnostnega sprevoda po Ljubljani.62 Velike narodne manifestacije se je na ljubljanskem Kongresnem trgu udeležilo nad 30.000 ljudi.63 Shoda so se udeležile tudi učenke in učiteljice I. dekliške ljudske šole. »Pra- znično oblečene so se zbrale deklice ob 8h v šolskem poslopju. Vse so se okrasile s slovenskimi trakovi, v rokah so nosile male slovenske zastavice.«64 Čeprav je znano, da se je španska gripa po Evropi širila tudi zaradi množičnih shodov po premirju, pa za shod 29. oktobra v Ljubljani vsaj z vidika umrljivosti tega ne moremo trditi. Umrljivost za špansko gripo in pljuč- nico v Ljubljani je namreč vrh dosegla že sredi okto- bra in je nato do srede novembra skokovito upadla.65 Glede na različne napovedi o ponovnem začet- ku pouka na Kranjskem tega verjetno niso začele vse šole hkrati do dneva natančno, pri čemer se zdi, da so poleg epidemije na začetek pouka pomembno vplivale tudi takratne zapletene politične razmere. V časopisu Slovenski narod je 9. novembra Poverjeni- štvo za uk in bogočastje objavilo vest, da se bo pouk 59 Gl. Šimac, Keber, Patriae ac humanitati; Učiteljski tovariš, 15. 11. 1918, št. 26, str. 4. 60 ARS, AS 33, reg. 17/8, fasc. 1918, št. 30004. 61 Učiteljski tovariš, 13. 12. 1918, št. 28, str. 9. 62 ZAL, LJU 401, OŠ Zvonka Runka, šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 25. 63 Perovšek, Za Državo Slovencev, Hrvatov in Srbov, str. 207. 64 ZAL, LJU 372, I. dekliška ljudska šola v Ljubljani, šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 22. 65 Kalčič, Španska gripa, slika 2, str. 260. 99 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–1022022 na srednjih šolah in učiteljišču začel takoj, ko bodo razmere to dopuščale, pouk na ljudskih šolah pa se bo »vršil dalje po krajevnih razmerah«.66 Verjetno se je na večini šol pouk spet začel sredi novembra, saj je bilo 14. novembra v časopisju objavljeno, da se »šol- ski pouk prične te dni na vseh šolah«. Redni pouk na obeh učiteljiščih in državni obrtni šoli v Ljubljani se je začel 18. novembra.67 Epidemija influence je dobršen del šolske popu- lacije zdravstveno izčrpala, pri čemer je treba upošte- vati specifične razmere ob koncu prve svetovne vojne, ko je večini prebivalstva že dalj časa primanjkovalo hrane in drugih osnovnih življenjskih potrebščin. Iz časopisnih člankov dobimo vtis, da je epidemija špan- ske gripe prispevala k večji splošni skrbi za zdravje otrok. Ko so namreč ljubljanske šole znova začele s poukom, so v časopisju pozivali, naj se predvsem iz zdravstvenih razlogov povsod uvede nerazdeljen do- poldanski pouk. Pri dopoldanskem in popoldanskem pouku so namreč otroci morali »štirikrat prekorakati 66 Slovenski narod, 9. 11. 1918, št. 265, str. 4. 67 Slovenski narod, 14. 11. 1918, št. 269, str. 5. blatne in snežne ulice, tedaj štirikrat namočiti že itak slabo obutev, štirikrat prezebati v slabi obleki«, kar je slabo vplivalo na njihovo zdravje. »Mladina trpi že tako veliko radi slabe prehrane, sedaj naj se pa izpo- stavlja še nepotrebni prezebi.« Hkrati bi šole ogrevali le enkrat dnevno, popoldne pa bi jih lahko temeljito zračili.68 Umiranje učencev in učiteljev ljubljanskih šol Šolske kronike nekaterih ljubljanskih šol vsebu- jejo tudi podatke o umrlih učencih in učiteljih. Ker nimamo ocen dejanske umrljivosti za špansko gripo niti za Ljubljano niti za posamezne slovenske dežele, teh znanih posameznih primerov ne moremo vpeti v širšo statistično sliko. Brez statističnih podatkov pa primerjave med posameznimi skupinami prebival- stva glede umrljivosti niso mogoče. Kljub temu so ti podatki dragoceni, saj kažejo, da je bila umrljivost za gripo med učenci in učitelji prisotna na številnih šolah. Na šoli v Polju je med epidemijo med 5. ok- 68 Slovenski narod, 19. 11. 1918, št. 273, str. 4. Upodobitev španske gripe kot Španke s pahljačo (Kurent, 16. 10. 1918, št. 6, v prilogi). 100 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–102 2022 tobrom in 14. novembrom umrlo 6 učencev druge- ga, petega in šestega razreda. Umrla je tudi učitelji- ca. »Učiteljstvo in učenci so spremili prerano umrlo učiteljico h prezgodnjemu grobu, kjer se je poslovil v imenu učiteljstva in učencev šolski voditelj […]«.69 Na prvi dekliški ljudski šoli je za »hripo« zbolelo 300 učenk in 8 učiteljic, ki pa so bile v začetku novembra vse že zdrave.70 V kroniko šole na Prulah so zapisali, da zdravstveno stanje leta 1918 ni bilo posebno ugo- dno, saj je mladina bolehala zlasti za špansko gripo, ki je povzročila smrt treh učencev iz prvega, tretjega in četrtega razreda.71 V šoli v Zalogu pri Ljubljani je zbolelo 47 učencev in učiteljica, za nalezljivo bole- znijo pa je umrl učenec drugega razreda.72 Na dana- šnji osnovni šoli Valentina Vodnika je umrl učenec drugega razreda.73 Na šoli v Šentvidu je zbolelo pet šestin otrok, španska bolezen pa je »zahtevala tudi nekaj žrtev izmed šolskih otrok«.74 Na šoli Ledina je zaradi gripe umrl učenec IV. c razreda, dva učenca pa sta umrla zaradi griže. »So- učenci so položili prezgodaj umrlim in pridnim to- varišem cvetje na grob ter jih spremili v spremstvu svojih učiteljev s šolsko zastavo k zadnjemu počitku k Sv. Križu. Poleg roditeljev, sorodnikov in prijate- ljev žaluje za njimi tudi I. mestna šola.«75 Zapisnik učiteljske konference III. mestne deške ljudske šole (Vrtača) vsebuje podatek, da kruta španska bolezen tudi temu zavodu ni prizanesla. »Ugrabila nam je mnogoletnega tovariša učitelja dne 15. oktobra 1918, ki je služboval na tukajšnji šoli […] 7 let in 1 mesec. Bil je miren in dober človek ter nam vsem ljub tovariš […].«76 Tudi na šoli v Spodnji Šiški so med epidemi- jo oboleli skoraj vsi učitelji in mladina.77 Med bolj prizadete šole je spadal Zavod sv. Sta- nislava v Šentvidu, kjer je zbolelo skoraj 200 učencev in veliko učiteljev, umrlo pa je pet učencev, učitelj, prefekt in sestra usmiljenka. V izvestjih te škofijske gim nazije najdemo natančen zapis: »V začetku me- seca oktobra je nastopila v zavodu španska bolezen in se je silno hitro širila, pa v začetku ni bila vide- 69 ZAL, LJU 391, OŠ Edvarda Kardelja Ljubljana Polje, šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 24. 70 ZAL, LJU 372, I. dekliška ljudska šola v Ljubljani (pri sv. Jakobu), šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 22. 71 ZAL, LJU 370, OŠ Prule, šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 21. 72 ZAL, LJU 367, OŠ Zalog pri Ljubljani, šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 21. 73 ZAL, LJU 230, OŠ Valentina Vodnika, šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 19. 74 ZAL, LJU 406, OŠ Franc Rozman Stane, Ljubljana Šentvid, šolska kronika za leto 1918/1919, MF 27. 75 SŠM, dokumentacijska zbirka, mapa OŠ Ledina, Letno po- ročilo I. mestne šestrazredne ljudske šole v Ljubljani v voj- nem šolskem letu 1918/1919. 76 ZAL, LJU 233, OŠ Vrtača, III. mestna deška ljudska šola v Ljubljani, Zapisnik II. redne učiteljske konference z dne 27. novembra 1918. 77 SŠM, dokumentacijska zbirka, mapa šole Sp. Šiška, kronika šole iz leta 1939. ti nevarna. Dne 6. oktobra popoldne pa nenadoma umrje dijak 4. razreda […]. Dne 7. oktobra je v lju- bljanski deželni bolnici umrl dijak 5. razreda […]. Dne 10. oktobra je umrl prvošolec […]. Istega dne je umrl dijak 5. razreda […]. Dne 11. oktobra zjutraj pa je Bog poklical v večnost profesorja […]. Še istega dne po 1. uri popoldne je umrl prefekt […]. Dne 16. oktobra je umrl dijak 5. razreda […]. Kot zadnja žr- tev silne španske bolezni je 8. decembra umrla sestra usmiljenka.«78 Obolevanje učiteljev in učiteljic med epidemijo je razvidno tudi iz zapisov v Učiteljskem tovarišu, kjer so ohranjeni nekrologi umrlih slovenskih učiteljev in učiteljic ter poročila o za gripo umrlih ženah in otrocih posameznih učiteljev. Med nekaterimi objav- ljenimi vestmi o umrlih učiteljih in njihovih svojcih v času epidemije gripe pa vzrok smrti pogosto ni bil zapisan. V teh primerih se je po eni strani lahko prav tako skrivala gripa, po drugi strani pa je bilo umiranje ljudi v vojnem času tudi iz drugih vzrokov pogostejše kot sicer. Zaključek Iz drobcev dokumentov Deželne vlade v Ljublja- ni, ohranjenih šolskih kronik in šolske dokumenta- cije ljubljanskih šol ter različnih zapisov v sočasnem dnevnem časopisju lahko nedvoumno sklepamo o veliki razširjenosti epidemije španske gripe med šol- skimi otroki in mladino v osrednjeslovenskem pro- storu. Na ljubljanskih ljudskih šolah je bila v prvih dneh oktobra bolna skoraj tretjina vseh šolarjev. De- lež učencev, ki so zaradi bolezni manjkali pri pou- ku, je bil v posameznih ljubljanskih šolah v razponu 16–75 % vseh šolarjev. Čeprav so podatki o obole- vanju otrok po posameznih šolah razdrobljeni in zbrani nesistematično, očitno potrjujejo ne le obstoj epidemije med otroki in učitelji, ampak epidemijo, ki je jeseni 1918 zajela vse plasti prebivalstva. Zaprtje šol je bil eden od javnozdravstvenih ukrepov v Av- stro-Ogrski in edini ukrep, ki so ga oblasti izvedle na Kranjskem. V istem obdobju so šole zaprli tudi v večini sosednjih avstro-ogrskih dežel in mest. Glede na močno razširjenost influence že vsaj v zadnjem te- dnu septembra 1918, pa se zdi, da so ta ukrep tudi na Kranjskem izvedli prepozno. Svet se je v času prisilnih počitnic za šolajoče se otroke temeljito spremenil. V času prekinitve pouka med epidemijo španske gripe se je končala prva sve- tovna vojna, razpadla je Avstro-Ogrska in nastala je Država SHS. Zavedanje o množičnem obolevanju in umiranju med epidemijo je hitro poniknilo v zgošče- nem vrvežu dogajanj ob koncu prve svetovne vojne. 78 XIV. izvestje škofijske gimnazije v zavodu sv. Stanislava v Št. Vidu nad Ljubljano o šolskem letu 1918/19, str. 16–18. Šimac, Keber, Patriae ac humanitati, str. 151. 101 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–1022022 Epidemija pa je ostala pozabljena tudi v kontekstu kolektivnega spomina na prvo svetovno vojno.79 VIRI IN LITERATURA ARHIVSKI VIRI ARS – Arhiv Republike Slovenije AS 33, Deželna vlada v Ljubljani (1861–1929). NŠAL – Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana ŽA Ljubljana – Sv. Jakob, Matične knjige, M 1891–1920 (prepis), Mrliška knjiga ljubljanske deželno-bolniške du- hovnije (duplikat), leto 1918. ZAL – Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana LJU 230, OŠ Valentina Vodnika, LJU 233, OŠ Vrtača, LJU 367, OŠ Zalog pri Ljubljani, LJU 370, OŠ Prule, LJU 372, I. dekliška ljudska šola v Ljubljani, LJU 391, OŠ Edvarda Kardelja Ljubljana Polje, LJU 401, Osnovna šola Zvonka Runka v Ljublja- ni, LJU 406, OŠ Franc Rozman Stane, Ljubljana Šentvid. SŠM – Slovenski šolski muzej Dokumentacijska zbirka, mapa OŠ Ledina Dokumentacijska zbirka, mapa šole Sp. Šiška ČASOPISI Dolenjske novice, 1918. Grazer Tagblatt, 1918. Kurent, 1918. Marburger Zeitung, 1918. Slovenski narod, 1918. Učiteljski tovariš, 1918. TISKANI VIRI Državni zakonik za kraljevine in dežele, zastopane v državnem zboru, let. 1913. XIV. izvestje škofijske gimnazije v zavodu sv. Sta- nislava v Št. Vidu nad Ljubljano o šolskem letu 1918/19. 79 Dodatni članki o španski gripi v slovenskih deželah so bili objavljeni v Acta Histriae 28, 2020, št. 1: Katarina Keber, »O španski bolezni, hripi posebne vrste«. Ljubljanska izkušnja s pandemijo španske gripe, str. 41-58; Urška Bratož, Vojna, la- kota in bolezen: po sledeh španske gripe v Kopru, str. 21-40, in Miha Seručnik, Pandemija španske gripe med Kranjsko in Istro - možnosti in omejitve digitalnih pristopov, str. 1-21. LITERATURA Biwald, Brigitte et al.: Spitäler, Lazarette, Hygiene, Wohlfahrt. Im Epizentrum des Zusammenbruchs. Wien im Ersten Weltkrieg (ur. Alfred Pfoser, An- dreas Weigl). Wien: Wiener Stadt- und Landes- archiv, Wienbibliothek im Rathaus, Verein für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 2013. Crosby, Alfred W.: Influenza. The Cambridge world history of human disease (ur. Kenneth F. Kiple). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, str. 807–811. Doberšek, Karel: Vpliv socialnih razmer na razvoj otroka na Prevaljah. Ljubljana: Slovenska šolska matica, 1929. Hutinec, Goran: Odjeci epidemije »španjolske gri- pe« 1918. godine u hrvatskoj javnosti. Radovi, vol. 38, 2006, str. 227–242. Johnson, Niall P. A. S., Mueller, Juergen: Updating the Accounts: Global Mortality of the 1918– 1920 »Spanish« Influenza Pandemic. Bulletin of the History of medicine, 2002, str. 105–115. Kalčič, Nina: Španska gripa ali »Kadar pride žito v do- bro zemljo in je ugodno vreme, tedaj je zrno veliko, zrno je debelo in močno. Ravnotako tudi influenčni bakcili. Kadar pridejo zanje ugodne razmere, tedaj se namnože in okrepe, da ne omagajo zlepa«, diplom- ska naloga, Oddelek za zgodovino FF UL, Ljub- ljana, 2001. Kalčič, Nina: Španska gripa=Spanish flu. Zdravstve- no varstvo, let. 41, št. 7–8, 2002, str. 257–262. Likar, Miha: Usoda nalezljivih bolezni. Ljubljana: DZS, 1981. Milovan Delić, Iva: Vijesti o španjolskoj gripi u pulj- skom dnevniku Hrvatski list. Tabula, 12, 2014, str. 173–182. Opdycke, Sandra: The flu epidemic of 1918, America’s Experience in the Global Health Crisis. New York: Routledge, 2014. Perovšek, Jurij: Za Državo Slovencev, Hrvatov in Sr- bov. Slovenska kronika XX. stoletja 1900–1941 (ur. Marjan Drnovšek, Drago Bajt). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2005, str. 207–208. Phillips, Howard: Influenza Pandemic. 1914-1918- online International Encyclopedia of the First World War (ur. Ute Daniel et al.). Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 8. 10. 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.15463/ie1418.10148. Schmied-Kowarzik, Anatol: War Losses (Austria- Hungary). 1914-1918-online International En- cyclopedia of the First World War (ur. Ute Daniel et al.). Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 17. 9. 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15463/ie1418.10964. Šimac, Miha in Katarina Keber: Patriae ac humanita- ti: zdravstvena organizacija v zaledju soške fronte. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2011. Tičar, Josip: Boj nalezljivim boleznim. Ljubljana: Ti- skovna zadruga v Ljubljani, 1922. 102 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH, 93–102 2022 Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Razvoj javnega zdravstva na Slovenskem med prvo in drugo svetovno vojno in njegov utemeljitelj dr. Ivo Pirc (1891–1967). Ljub- ljana: Inštitut za varovanje zdravja RS, 2005. S U M M A R Y Epidemic on school benches: a case of Spa- nish flu in 1918 in Central Slovenia The Spanish flu pandemic is considered one of the greatest catastrophes in human history. In the period of 1918–1920, the disease infected an esti- mated 500 million people worldwide. According to the most recent data, it resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million or, rather, three to five percent of the world’s population. The pandemic reached all parts of the globe in three separate waves within less than a year. In the northern hemisphere, it was first detected in the spring and summer of 1918; the second wave spread across the globe in the autumn that same year, followed by the last wave in the spring of 1919. As regards Austria-Hungary, the influenza epidemic took about 260,000 civilian lives. Its deadly second wave hit the monarchy in September 1918, reached its peak in October and November, and subsided in December that same year. Research on the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 in the Slovenian territory is made difficult by the lack- ing and poorly preserved health care documentation as well as by the complicated geopolitical situation in 1918/1919, since the epidemic erupted at the very end of the First World War, concurrently with the disintegration of Austria-Hungary and the estab- lishment of the State of SHS and later Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Morbidity rates among pupils and teachers are one of the rare aspects of the epidemic that have to some degree been docu- mented and directly point to the wide prevalence of influenza across the Slovenian territory. In the early days of October 1918, schools in Ljubljana reported 1,252 ill pupils or, rather, 29.7% of all school-chil- dren. School absenteeism varied between 16% and 75% of all pupils. The only public health measure that was implemented in Carniola during the epi- demic was a one-month closure of all schools, first in Ljubljana and then in the most severely affected districts in Lower Carniola. In light of the mass out- break of the Spanish flu among pupils and students, the Ljubljana city physician in Ljubljana suspended classes on 3 October 1918. On 12 October, the City Magistrate, alongside the Imperial-Royal Provincial School Council, decreed the closure of all secondary, public and private schools as well as kindergartens until (and including) 3 November 1918. The major- ity of schools reopened in mid-November. However, after one month of government-imposed holiday, school-children found themselves in an entirely new world. In the beginning of October, they still sat on the benches of Austro-Hungarian schools and in mid-November returned to schools of the newly cre- ated Yugoslav state. From the history of epidemics Editors: Barbara Šterbenc Svetina Miha Preinfalk 104 2022SPECIAL ISSUE FOREWORD More than a year and a half into the new coro- navirus pandemic and the response to it, a sense of despair has taken hold of Slovenian society over the prolonged situation that prevents us from returning to the life as we previously knew it, with part of the population failing to understand the virus that causes COVID-19 and calling science into question. The challenges facing us are rejection of protective meas- ures and dismally low vaccination rates. Conversely, the pandemic presents researchers with a unique opportunity to weigh previous re- search on the history of healthcare and epidemics in the light of their up-close, first-hand experience with the current health crisis. In other words, it pro- vides an opportunity to generate an insight into how authorities and societies faced epidemics in the past by comparing measures, reactions to them, and post- epidemic life. New research findings can give us a better understanding of the present situation. The review Kronika has regularly featured top- ics concerning the history of epidemics and health- care. Special mention should be made of several prominent articles that discussed epidemics in his- torical context over the past decades. Already in the 1950s Majda Smole wrote about the plague in the sixteenth-century Carniola and Ema Umek about the plague in Styria between 1679 and 1683, in the 1960s Olga Janša-Zorn published an article on the cholera epidemic in Carniola in 1855, and the 1970s saw the publication of Peter Vodopivec’s article on the smallpox epidemic in Carniola and Ljubljana in 1873 and 1874. This special issue of Kronika also aims to encour- age the public to read and reflect on the history of epidemics and thus spread the knowledge to better cope with the ongoing pandemic. Collaboration with researchers who already addressed such topics in the past has delivered three new studies—two focusing on smallpox epidemics in the nineteenth-century Austrian Littoral and Carniola, and one investigat- ing healing practices related to the plague epidemic in folklore. To further consolidate the knowledge by bringing it together in a single volume, the current issue of Kronika republishes three earlier articles on the topic at hand, that is, epidemics of contagious diseases in general as well as the epidemics of chol- era and Spanish influenza, with each study discuss- ing how authorities attempted to curb epidemics and how these were faced by the population. Motivated by the global relevance of the subject matter, we de- cided to publish the contributions fully translated to English and thus share our findings with inter- national experts and everyone potentially interested. Barbara Šterbenc Svetina and Katarina Keber 105 2022 SPECIAL ISSUE UDK 616.912:615.37(439.5-13)"18" Urška Bratož PhD, Research Associate, Science and Research Centre Koper, Institute for Historical Studies, Garibaldijeva 1, SI–6000 Koper Email: urska.bratoz@zrs-kp.si Smallpox prevention in the Austrian Littoral ABSTRACT The article discusses vaccination as the key smallpox prophylaxis, used in the Habsburg provinces from the begin- ning of the nineteenth century onward. The analysis of quantitative data for the Austrian Littoral (particularly Koper and Trieste) also points to the scope and frequency of smallpox epidemics in the second half of the nineteenth century, which raises questions concerning the extent to which these prophylactic measures were implemented and the population’s willingness to heed the calls for immunization. By creating a regulatory framework, the state sought to attain the maximum possible prevalence of this practice, which nevertheless remained the target of various prejudices for a long time to come. The authorities, the Church, and scientists therefore sought to heighten the popular aware- ness on the need for immunization through a range of communication channels. Because cowpox vaccination failed to ensure lasting immunity, revaccination was of crucial importance, but its implementation was even more limited. KEY WORDS smallpox, vaccination, Habsburg Monarchy, Austrian Littoral, Koper, Trieste, nineteenth century IZVLEČEK PREPREČEVANJE ČRNIH KOZ V AVSTRIJSKEM PRIMORJU Članek obravnava vakcinacijo kot ključno profilakso pri črnih kozah, ki je bila tudi v habsburških deželah v uporabi od začetka 19. stoletja. Analiza kvantitativnih podatkov za območje Avstrijskega primorja (zlasti Koper in Trst) nakazuje na obsežnost in pogostost epidemij črnih koz tudi v drugi polovici 19. stoletja, kar odpira vprašanja o obsegu izvajanja teh profilaktičnih ukrepov, na drugi pa tudi o odzivnosti prebivalstva na pozive k cepljenju. Država je z regulativi skušala doseči čim večjo razširjenost te prakse, vendar pa so jo še dolgo po njeni uvedbi spre- mljali različni predsodki. S pozivi preko različnih komunikacijskih kanalov so zato oblasti, Cerkev in znanost skušali ozavestiti prebivalstvo o potrebnosti cepljenja. Ključnega pomena je bila tudi revakcinacija, saj cepljenje z govejimi kozami ni zagotavljalo trajne imunosti, vendar pa je bilo njeno izvajanje še bolj omejeno. KLJUČNE BESEDE črne koze, vakcinacija, habsburška monarhija, Avstrijsko primorje, Koper, Trst, 19. stoletje 106 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–118 2022 Introduction Also in the past, one of the most important questions concerning contagious diseases was how to prevent them. Some types of bacterial infections (especially cholera, but also dysentery, typhoid fe- ver, etc.) required different measures, starting with hygienization, which became a widespread and or- ganized practice in the nineteenth century, and so- cial mechanisms to mitigate the consequences of epidemics among socially disadvantaged (and more disease-prone) groups of population. However, in the case of smallpox,1 the nearly universal and systemic form of prophylaxis was immunization. Variolation and later vaccination, applied to confer immunity to smallpox, also marked the beginning of the history of vaccination, when “practical medicine outperformed theoretical achievements”2 for no less than a century, until the discovery of viruses, which paved the way to the development of immunology. Owing to its universal prevalence that posed an especially serious health threat to children, in the eighteenth and nine- teenth centuries smallpox received major medical at- tention to prevent infection. The paper3 aims to present some data on vaccina- tion in the nineteenth century as well as certain so- cial discourses that accompanied this practice within the context of concern for the wellbeing of the popu- lation. Using fragments of quantitative data (on the examples of Trieste as the key focus of the epidemic and the severely affected nearby Koper), the article also seeks to determine the incidence of variola on the one hand and the effectiveness of vaccination on the other. Variola epidemics in the second half of the nineteenth century The long-lasting presence of variola in the Euro- pean area was one of the main reasons that smallpox4 1 Smallpox (variola) is a contagious viral disease that can be passed from one person to another especially through cough- ing or sneezing, and by direct contact with body fluids or personal items of an infected person. The first symptoms in- clude high fever, fatigue, malaise, vomiting, etc., after which the infected person develops red rash or blisters. It usually starts on the face, upper arms, and legs (as well as mucous membranes), and then spreads all over the body. The patient is the most contagious at this time. After a few days, the fever subsides, and the rash turns into papules and vesicles with a red ring formed around the edge. Initially, the lesions are filled with translucent liquid, which turns into pus, and af- ter a few days form scabs that dry and fall off, leaving deep pockmarks on the skin. The patient’s general condition slowly improves; however, if that is not the case, the disease can also lead to death (cf., e.g., Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 10; Kiple, The Cambridge world history, pp. 1008–1012). 2 Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, p. 602. 3 The research was partially funded from the ARRS project J6-1800 and program P6-0272. 4 In the first half of the century, F. V. Lipič, physician in Ljub- gradually became inscribed into the collective con- sciousness and fear, and indirectly also into a broader discourse on the protection of children’s health,5 in- cluding as part of the growth-oriented population policy. Smallpox often accompanied other epidemics, e.g., cholera (in 18736 and 1886,7 for example) and influenza—or the ‘Spanish flu’—in 1918,8 whereas in certain periods it also occurred sporadically. A major smallpox epidemic that was triggered by the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s9 severely affected the Austrian Littoral, especially Trieste. Soon after it reached Austria, the epidemic turned the city into the second largest focus of contagion (with a death toll of 72.2 persons10 per ten thousand inhabitants and 18.3 in Istria). A year later, it peaked in Gorizia-Gradisca (7.6) and in 1874 in Carniola (51.1) and several other provinces.11 As shall be seen below, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, variola hit Trieste in several intermittent epidemic waves. One of the most detailed collections of health statistics available on the occurrence of the disease in Trieste12 builds solely on the number of small- pox patients who sought help in the city hospital (either because they suffered from a severe form of the disease or because, mostly coming from the city’s poorer quarters, they had no other shelter), without providing an overall picture of its incidence among the population. Although reporting smallpox as a contagious disease (in addition to scarlet fever, diph- theria, any type of typhus, cholera, dysentery, mea- sles, and whooping cough) was mandatory under the ljana, pointed to the widespread use of a single term for cow- pox and a disease erroneously identified as human pox (which was, in fact, varicella or chickenpox) (Lipič, Topografija, p. 209). Conversely, A. De Manussi from the Trieste hospital tentatively typified smallpox into “vaioloidi” (a mild form of smallpox), “vaiolo vero” (ordinary smallpox with well-de- veloped pustules and “pustule fever”), “vaiolo confluente” (confluent rash and coalescing pustules), “vaiolo emorragico” (hemorrhaging within petechiae), and “purpura vaiolosa” (no papules or pustules but an extremely high occurrence of pete- chiae on the skin or mucous membranes, with severe hemor- rhaging in various organs), without including varicella in his statistical data (De Manussi, Cenni, pp. 14–15). 5 On this, see Bratož, Bolni otroci, pp. 438–449. 6 In 1873, 620 persons contracted cholera and 351 died of it in Trieste (Bratož, Bledolična vsiljivka, p. 309). Because that same year recorded a remarkably low number of ten small- pox cases compared to the staggering figures (between three hundred and nine hundred) two years before and after that, it seems reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of people infected with smallpox was attributed to cholera as both infections perhaps coincided or the data were collected with less consistency. 7 Cholera killed 560 of nine hundred infected citizens in Tri- este (Bratož, Bledolična vsiljivka, p. 309). 8 See Bratož, Vojna, lakota, p. 27. 9 Kramar, Epidemije, p. 110. 10 Not even second to Vienna with 52.7 deaths per ten thou- sand inhabitants. 11 Prinzing, Epidemics, p. 275. 12 De Manussi, Cenni. 107 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–1182022 law of 1870,13 the actual number of infected persons remains open to debate. However, based on the nu- merical data available, several waves of smallpox can be detected in the last quarter of the nineteenth cen- tury alone. The Trieste hospital recorded the highest number of infections (1,973) in 1872,14 after which the disease continued to occur in minor outbreaks until 1880. The number of infections increased again in 1884 (867), and the end of the epidemic waves may be said to have arrived no sooner than four years later. Apart from smallpox, the city was also visited by cholera (which may have contributed to a less diligent recording of infections). Smallpox outbreaks peaked again in 1893 (597) in what developed into a two-year epidemic. According to these data, the mortality rate varied between 17% and almost 30%.15 The Koper district also experienced a major out- break in 1872/73. The data from the city of Koper re- veal that 314 persons contracted smallpox and forty- four died from the disease in that period (albeit not stating clearly over what time interval the evidence was collected).16 A significant number of infected 13 See, e.g., Bratož, Bledolična vsiljivka, p. 189. 14 Other data obtained by the deputation in Trieste provide the following, probably more realistic figures: between early Oc- tober 1871 and early April 1873, the city registered 2,634 infections resulting in 565 deaths (see Scartabellati, Visibili nemici, p. 534); cf. also the data brought forth by Pinguenti- ni, Cronache, p. 40, stating no less than 4,839 infected and 893 deceased during the epidemic by drawing on monthly statistical data published in the newspaper Il Cittadino. His evaluation is also more in line with the estimated number of deaths per ten thousand inhabitants, provided by Prinzing, Epidemics, p. 275, whereas official state statistics (see Vodopi- vec, Črne koze, p. 92) set forth 923 smallpox-related deaths in 1872 alone and another fifty-three the following year. 15 De Manussi, Cenni; cf. Resoconto sanitario. 16 According to the register of infected persons (SI PAK KP 7, t. u. 110, 1872, Elenco dei colpiti, risanati e morti dal vajuo- were the inmates of the city penitentiary (together with the wards accounting to about 20%), most of whom successfully recovered (5.8% died). Slightly less than half of infected persons were peasants who made up the majority population in the city, with mortality as high as 18.7%.17 On the other hand, according to parish registers, smallpox occurrences in Koper caused fewer fatali- ties in the last decades of the nineteenth century; the disease manifested more severely between the end of 1884 and the first months of 1885, when it killed six people (including three children) in Koper, and be- tween the end of 1887 and early 1888, when it killed seven (among them three children).18 Immunization through the prism of regulations and social discourses During smallpox outbreaks, particular attention was paid to children’s health, also as part of the popu- lation policy encouraging the development of medi- cine19 and prophylaxis aimed at disease prevention,20 lo), the first case of the disease already occurred in the early 1872 and the biggest surge in infections took place in Sep- tember, but sporadic incidences continued all until the spring of the following year. 17 SI PAK KP 7, t. u. 110, a. u. 2122. 18 ŠAK, register of deaths (Koper), 1875–1899. 19 This also provides an important context for the understand- ing of the formation and development of pediatrics; see, e.g., Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, 342 and 255. 20 However, it seems reasonable to add that, before scientific dis- coveries were made attributing each disease a specific agent and etiology, smallpox prevention attempts were like those used for other contagious diseases with a more pronounced social component (e.g., cholera, typhus, etc.), including hy- gienization measures, especially in poor city quarters. Thus, in 1872, there were reports also from Trieste of a high smallpox incidence in poor areas, where dangerously dense population Fig. 1: Smallpox epidemics in Trieste according to the city hospital data (source: De Manussi, Cenni). 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 18 71 18 72 18 73 18 74 18 75 18 76 18 77 18 78 18 79 18 80 18 81 18 82 18 83 18 84 18 85 18 86 18 87 18 88 18 89 18 90 18 91 18 92 18 93 18 94 recovered deceased 108 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–118 2022 primarily through immunization. Whereas some discussions21 explicitly underlined poverty as one of the major factors that contributed to poor repro- duction, they also maintained that the demographic growth would indirectly benefit from preventive health measures that prolonged life expectancy or, rather, reduced infant mortality, which was especially true for smallpox immunization. A delayed impact of immunization would, of course, also be ensuring the survival of most children up to an age (from between fifteen and twenty years onward) when they would “benefit society” or the state (workforce, the army, and so on).22 The first immunization (inoculation/variolation) procedures23 against smallpox took place as early as the end of the eighteenth century, with an intradermal introduction of the human variola virus on both upper arms. As an enlightened medical accomplishment,24 immunization in a way represented the triumph of reason and fostered a sense of human dominion over nature and hence also diseases.25 Although it generated lasting immunity, variola- tion also posed a threat of developing a severe or even deadly form of smallpox. Moreover, while recovering from the effects of variolation, inoculated persons could themselves become a source of infection to others.26 Soon after the English physician Edward Jenner (re)discovered and improved vaccination (ad- ministering cow vaccine) in 1798,27 the procedure was gradually adopted by physicians for only causing a milder form of smallpox.28 However, because this facilitated the spread of infection, making the preparation of provisional space for their transfer urgently necessary (Pinguentini, Cronache, pp. 37 and 41; cf. Scartabellati, Visi- bili nemici, p. 533; for Ljubljana, see Vodopivec, Črne koze, p. 96). That same year, the authorities in Koper, too, devoted particular attention to ensure the cleanliness of public sur- faces, as well as disinfection and control over spatial hygiene (see SI PAK KP 7, t. u. 110, Protocolli della Commissione sanitaria, 1872). 21 E.g., Mascherpa, Sulla Vaccinazione, pp. 110–113. 22 Ibid., p. 103. It should be noted that smallpox not only result- ed in the staggering death toll, but it also caused blindness or maimed people in some other way that rendered them inca- pable of work. 23 In his medical practice, the physician Anton Muznik from Gorizia described the procedure very eloquently and wrote down his clinical observations regarding its execution on a few noble children (Muznik, Goriško podnebje). On variola- tion in Istria, see especially Cigui, Le origini, pp. 265–295. 24 Foucault recognized smallpox vaccination as a new type of socio-political response to epidemics. In his opinion, small- pox signified a state “intervention,” especially through pre- vention, and an emphasis on safety and public health (see, e.g., Thacker, The Shadows). 25 Cf. Muznik, Goriško podnebje, p. 243; Schrom Dye and Smith, Mother Love. 26 See, e.g., Kiple, Cambridge world history, pp. 1008–1012; Bori sov, Zgodovina medicine, p. 245. 27 Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, pp. 403–404. 28 As outlined in the Italian Dictionary of Public Hygiene (1860), vaccination was initially performed by dabbing the vaccine into a small incision in the upper outer arm. Later, it became customary to make a “puncture” with a steel lancet method failed to provide lasting immunity, revacci- nation was—still unbeknownst to Jenner—required no more than ten years later. The practice of vaccination took hold in Slove- nian territory in the early nineteenth century—after Vincenc Kern and Anton Muznik introduced it to Carniola and Gorizia in 180129—and at about the same time also probably in Istria.30 Smallpox vacci- nation was already supported by the first Austrian rule,31 and the subsequent French government in- troduced compulsory vaccination across the Illyrian Provinces.32 In the 1820s, during the restored sover- eignty of the Austrian Empire, the government im- posed vaccination with instructions,33 regulated by individual provincial codes. Changes in government entailed certain modifi- cations in regulating and implementing this preven- tive practice. Thus, for example, the bureaucratization of procedures, which the Austrian government intro- duced in Lombardy during the first decades of the nineteenth century (rendering vaccination no longer a philanthropic activity but one imposed on physi- cians), met with criticism in the following segment of the “Dictionary of Public Health” in 1860: “In the period of the Kingdom of Italy, under Director General [pioneer of vaccination in Italy, Luigi] Sacco, vacci- nation was an act of genuine philanthropy that devout, esteemed members of all strata, gathered in provincial committees, had taken on with great diligence and re- ligious ardor, and fulfilled it to the tremendous benefit of the population. Yet the moment that the Austrian government pushed it through the door of bureaucracy, it was stripped of all its humanitarian reputation for which it had been embraced and considered desirable, after all those useful committees had to give way to city deputations. The heavy burden was thus placed on physi- cians administering the vaccine, who shouldered all the responsibility not only for the procedure that they had to perform but also for its results, which they had to verify in nearly all cases.”34 or simply a needle. The form most often applied was the liq- uid vaccine, either arm-to-arm or from animal pustules. The dry powder vaccine (dried scabs) first had to be diluted in cold water on a glass plate (Dizionario di igiene pubblica, pp. 785–793). 29 See, e.g., Zupanič Slavec, Goriški medicus, p. 225; Borisov, Zgodovina medicine. 30 See also Bratož, Cepljenje proti kozam. 31 Cf. Brisky et al., Introduction. 32 Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, p. 405. On vaccination in Istria during the first Austrian and subsequent French sovereignty, see Cigui, Misure di profilassi. 33 Children without proof of vaccination were prohibited from entering schools and other public institutions (Zupanič Sla- vec, Mlekarice, pp. 146–147; cf. Globočnik, Nauk slovenskim županom). 34 “Mentre durante il Regno d’Italia, quand’era direttore generale il Sacco, la vaccinazione formava un compit o di pura filantropia, che persone pie, ragguardevoli d’ogni classe, raccolte in Comitati provinciali si facevano scrupoloso e religioso obbligo di adempire, e lo adempivano con tanto profitto per la popolazione, appena fu 109 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–1182022 The Austrian law, issued on November 13th, 1821, partially centralized the vaccination practice by bringing it under government control35 and making it mandatory for physicians to obtain an additional certificate to perform the procedure. To ensure that the authorities could exert some control over the im- plementation of this systematic preventive measure, the law, among other things, made the use of certain social mechanisms contingent on vaccination; with- out it, foundling babies were not to be placed in the care of wet nurses, and unvaccinated children were not admitted to orphanages or other public and pri- vate institutions. Anyone who had not received the vaccine (or failed to prove that they had recovered from smallpox naturally by showing their scars) was denied social aid, pension, or a stipend. Further- more, charity organizations were prohibited from extending assistance to parents who failed to dem- onstrate that they had recovered from smallpox or present a vaccination certificate,36 which was a way for “the state to safeguard the money it had invested in people.”37 Still long after it had been introduced, smallpox vaccination continued to raise controversy, a general sense of unease and mistrust, and it remained the subject of many pro et contra polemics. The arguments against it pointed to unreliable effects of vaccination, especially in the light of unsuccessful initial attempts, risks, and the purported possibility of contracting dis- eases, such as syphilis, erysipelas, and so on, coupled with moral, religious, and other kinds of prejudice for fear of the “unnatural” interfering with the human body, which became even more pronounced after the introduction of the vaccination procedure.38 fatta entrare dal Governo austriaco nei cancelli della burocrazia, perdette tutto il prestigio della filantropia che la faceva accetta e desiderata, perche’ quei benefici Comitati dovettero lasciar luogo alle deputazioni comunali. Ond’e’, che essa a questo modo divenne un pesante fardello pei medici vaccinatori, sugli omeri dei quali si fece d’allora in poi cadere tutta la responsabilità non solo dell ’ope- razione che doveano praticare, ma ben anco dell ’esito che doveano essi stessi verificare in quasi tutti i casi” (Dizionario di igiene pubblica, pp. 811–812). 35 The implementation of the vaccination program at regional level was entrusted to district governorships (cf. Brisky et al., Introduction, p. 86). 36 Dizionario di igiene pubblica, arts. 11, 13, 35, 36. 37 Kozinc, Prebolela sem črne koze, p. 12. 38 Several sources (e.g., Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, Decem- ber 14th, 1861, and Slomšek, Blaže ino Nežica, p. 166) report that immediately after the vaccine was administered, some mothers sucked on their babies’ arms to extract the “inserted pocks” from their bodies, believing that the vaccine would reverse the effect of baptism (cf. Bratož, Bolni otroci). Re- garding Ljubljana, Vodopivec even writes about public agita- tion against vaccination (Vodopivec, Črne koze). At the end of the century, J. Simonič, the author of a booklet on natural remedies and prolongation of life, characterized vaccination as introducing “poison” into the body, which merely “contam- inates the blood” while providing little benefit (“The sub- stance contained in the smallpox vaccine, either taken from an animal or a human, is a dangerous poison, all the more so, if the animal or the child, from which the substance has been Whereas the newly established practice of vac- cination generated the fear of introducing animal matter (humanized vaccine) into the human body,39 almost seventy years later, when these polemics were particularly fierce,40 some recognized it (even with the vaccine harvested directly from cows) as a safer option to eliminate the purported risks of spread- ing certain human diseases. Suspicion that syphilis would be transmitted from foundlings whose parents came from questionable social and moral environ- ments (“… Hospices receiving poverty-stricken children together with those born in shame ... Well, it is these wretched outcasts that must provide the lymph to vac- cinate our country’s population”)41 figured as the flag- ship argument used by those who later championed harvesting vaccine directly from cowpox pustules because the humanized vaccine lost its effectiveness over time.42 In this discourse, vaccination partially coincided with what was then considered a pressing social is- sue and a threat that society recognized in the lower strata, the destitute mob,43 problematizing the use of vaccine produced in social institutions, such as or- phanages and foundling homes.44 Nonetheless, the harvested, also harbors other pathological substances in the body.”) (Simonič, Kakó postanemo stari?, p. 183). 39 This was, for example, stressed by the historian N. Durbach in her study on anti-vaccination propaganda in Britain, who saw one of the reasons for aversion to vaccination as an “un- natural practice” in the controversy-ridden “human/animal” antagonism. The introduction of the vaccine of animal origin into the human body signified its symbolic contamination, especially in view of the close relationship between physical and mental health (Durbach, Smallpox, pp. 207–209). The emergence of the anti-vaccination movement was triggered by John Simon, Medical Officer of Health for the City of London, who concluded his research on the spread of small- pox during the 1850s by proposing that the only way to pro- tect the population (the community as a whole) was through a vaccination policy stipulating mandatory, universal vaccina- tion of children, which was subsequently also incorporated into British law (Bynum, Medicina, p. 470). 40 Not only in the local context but also globally (see Agostoni, Knowledge (https://journals.openedition.org/nuevomundo/ 75397 (25. 11. 2020)). 41 “Ospizi, ove insieme coi figli della miseria sono accolti i parti della vergogna… Ebbene questi poveri reietti sono quelli che devono furnire la linfa vaccinica per innestare la popolazione nel nostro paese!” (La Provincia, May 1st, 1870, p. 517). 42 La Provincia, August 1st, 1872, p. 1633, Giovanni Biaggio. Even though others acknowledged that syphilis transmission during the vaccination procedure was rare and more likely to occur when applying tubes with questionable content of unknown origin than in arm-to-arm vaccination, which the physician performed with all due care (Ciatto, Il Vaiuolo, p. 29. Ciatto, for example, allowed for two good variants, i.e., animal and humanized, of the vaccine; in Trieste, the vaccine of animal origin was probably administered for the first time during the epidemic of 1872; see Pinguentini, Cronache, p. 37. 43 On various collective fears of the poor or on the poor seen as economic, moral, health, and other kind of threats (including as carriers of contagious diseases), see Čeč, Revščina, e.g., p. 295. 44 For example, two foundlings were mentioned during the vac- 110 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–118 2022 law from 1821 stipulated that foundling hospitals as district vaccination institutions should regularly per- form arm-to-arm smallpox vaccination to ensure a stable source of vaccine.45 The lower strata were generally considered a di- rect health risk46 (as well as a moral one, owing to the strong stigma associated with contracting syphilis as a sexual transmitted disease) for purportedly con- taminating vaccine recipients through the introduc- tion of body fluids from social outcasts,47 first passing the disease to children and subsequently on to moth- ers and wet nurses. There were also other ways in which vaccination was associated with social and other, especially public institutions. As stated, before entering school, every child was required to present the vaccination cer- tificate even years after it had been issued. However, during the variola epidemic in 1885,48 the authori- ties in Trieste, for example, deemed it reasonable for schoolchildren to present a certificate of revaccina- tion, which was to be carried out every four to five years.49 On reopening at the end of the epidemic, access to schools was authorized to pupils aged less than ten years and holding the vaccination certifi- cate, whereas older children were to prove having been vaccinated in the last five years or revaccinated on the outbreak of the epidemic.50 Whereas institutes undoubtedly ensured that vaccination was well-controlled and carried out with a great deal of consistency, getting the rest of the population to be vaccinated represented a chal- lenge. It seems reasonable to concur that because the smallpox vaccination apparatus lacked a solid and uniform legal and institutional framework, its effec- tiveness depended on voluntary public participation, cination in 1835 performed on Koper’s registered children. However, the vaccine cannot have been harvested from them because they were among the last vaccinated children in the town. Besides, the district physician also used the dry powder vaccine, most probably in the initial phase of vaccination. On concern for foundlings’ health, which already included vacci- nation in the Trieste hospital at the beginning of the century, see, e.g., Čeč, “Da bo dobro izbral”, pp. 204–205. 45 Dizionario di igiene pubblica, art. 11. 46 What should also be borne in mind is that in some areas the poor held a vigil for the dead in exchange for a meal (see Vodopivec, Črne koze), which could have contributed to them becoming carriers of the disease. 47 An opposite rhetoric adopted at that time centered on the residents in social institutions that were exploited for har- vesting the vaccine to benefit the rest of the population and on marginal social groups that were subjected to medical ex- perimentation. 48 The smallpox outbreaks in 1884 and 1885 affected at least 1,290 persons in Trieste, with mortality among hospitalized patients soaring as high as 20% (see De Manussi, Cenni). 49 Pinguentini, Cronache, p. 45. 50 Notificazione del Magistrato civico di Trieste sul vaiolo, Sep- tember 10th, 1885 (https://archiviodistatotrieste.it/docu- mento-del-mese/notificazione-del-magistrato-civico-di-tri- este-sul-vaiolo/ (25. 11. 2020)). as studies reveal.51 It indeed took a heterogeneous ensemble of actors, among them representatives of lay and church authorities, as well as, of course, phy- sicians, teachers, and so on. Moreover, this process coincided with the institutionalization and centrali- zation of the state and its public health (and social) policies or programs as well as the period of national consolidations.52 This also explains the vast spectrum of publications propagating vaccination in the nine- teenth-century Slovenian territory, encompassing everything from (popular) scientific discussions,53 handbooks, and instructions, to moral and educa- tional articles, didactic materials,54 and instructive youth literature.55 The awareness about the impor- tance of smallpox vaccination was raised using vari- ous information channels, especially newspapers,56 and this continued long after the vaccination practice had been established57 and improved. The advice to mayors, issued in 1880 and incor- porating the local authorities’ important endeavors to accelerate vaccination, reads as follows: “Some have maintained not long ago that smallpox vaccina- tion is of no use, but the experience teaches us just the opposite. Therefore, a wise mayor ought to promote this work in his municipality to the best of his abilities. Al- though inoculation is no longer forcibly administered, it is stipulated everywhere that it must be given to all the youth in public institutions and to all the poor that the city feeds, all soldiers, and such. Not only the mayor but also the clergy and teachers should concern themselves with notifying and announcing as they find appropriate when and where smallpox vaccination will take place, so that everyone in need of it can be there in due time.”58 The Slovenian press, featuring debates about vac- cination, also called on the clergy, the authorities, teachers, medical experts,59 and ‘men of reason’ in 51 Agostoni, Knowledge (https://journals.openedition.org/nue- vomundo/75397 (25. 11. 2020). 52 Ibid. 53 E.g., Ciatto’s lecture, which was also published (Ciatto, Il vaiuolo), and works, such as Kern, Nauk, and Robida, Zdravo telo, p. 8. 54 E.g., Vrtec, March 1st, 1880, June 1st, 1885. 55 Slomšek, Blaže ino Nežica; Košar, Od telesne reje otrok. 56 See, e.g., Slovenski narod, September 7th, 1877; September 8th, 1877; Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, February 25th, 1854; September 15th, 1855; December 14th, 1861, January 7th, 1874, etc. 57 On the outbreak of the epidemic in 1872, the authorities of Trieste called several times for vaccination and revaccination (Pinguentini, Cronache, p. 36). That same year, free mass vac- cination was organized in the Koper district and performed on nearly three thousand people (La Provincia, January 1st, 1873). The general vaccination was carried out in the muni- cipal hall and on Saturday in the house of Mayor Cristoforo de Belli. This was published in the local press, which had by then already attained a relatively wide circulation among the (town’s) population (La Provincia, February 1st, 1872). 58 Globočnik, Nauk slovenskim županom, p. 53. 59 The provincial codices from the period of the second Austri- an rule provided for financial bonuses to physicians for their diligent vaccination efforts (measured above all in the num- 111 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–1182022 general60 to take part in promulgating the impor- tance of vaccination. This rhetoric functioned at various levels, start- ing with the enlightened logic to achieve the general wellbeing, which had from the eighteenth century onward guided rationalist and utilitarian measures under a special administrative discipline or “police science.”61 The same context also provided the basis for the development of medical police in terms of public health management, instituted by Johann Pe- ter Frank.62 His comprehensive work covered nearly all the aspects of human life associated with diseases, especially epidemics. His central argument was that ber of vaccinated persons) (cf. Brisky et al., Introduction, p. 86). 60 Kern, Nauk, p. 9, cf. Globočnik, Nauk slovenskim županom. 61 See, e.g., Čeč, Revščina, p. 294. 62 See, e.g., Bynum, Medicina, p. 473. Frank, among other things, also successfully performed several vaccination tri- als on children during the epidemic of 1800, when Jenner’s method was still making its entrance into the world of medi- cine (Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, p. 404). a disease could not be prevented by individual medi- cal practitioners but by the state alone, which also had a duty to ensure the wellbeing of its citizens through centralized control performed by the public sanitary service and the public health system. This, in turn, went hand in hand with the idea of constitut- ing a numerically strong and healthy population as the foundation of a sound state63 in accordance with the cameralist concept of increasing the country’s wealth, followed by demographic growth.64 Against this background, the population had been (and re- mained) the central object of the government ever since the Enlightenment. The public discourse thus emphasized in vari- ous ways the importance of actively preventing chil- dren’s diseases, while smallpox had already become ingrained with its lasting presence in the European- wide broader discourse on (children’s) health protec- 63 See Bratož, Umazane ulice; cf. Borisov, Zgodovina medicine, pp. 393–394. 64 E.g., Hamlin, Commentaries. Fig. 2–3: The data on the variola epidemic in Trieste 1892–94 (source: De Manussi, Cenni). 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 30 to 35 35 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 e share of unvaccinated among the infected by age unvaccinated others 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 30 to 35 35 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 e share of unvaccinated among the deceased by age unvaccinated others 112 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–118 2022 tion and disease prevention,65 also in association with national rhetoric and collective responsibility for the health of young people. Although this aspect may no longer have been at the forefront in the nineteenth century, vaccination still occupied an important place in the discourse on preventive measures, health pro- tection, and an individual’s responsibility toward collective wellbeing. This period also witnessed the secularization in perceptions of health and diseases; although the Divine Will remained upheld, God was no longer conceived as the central or sole guarantor of a child’s health; instead, there was a growing belief that the child’s custodians or parents (especially the mother) could, at least to a certain extent, protect his or her health by taking a proactive approach.66 This was especially reflected in the medical and specialist literature, which argued that childhood deaths were common, even expected, and at the same time main- tained that the offspring67 could be protected with proper care and prevention.68 In the light of the ob- jectives of the ‘population policy,’ part of the respon- sibility was therefore shifted to parents, who were to follow the government’s and scientists’ instructions. What remains open to debate is the extent to which such endeavors met their target. Much can be inferred from the data collected in Trieste during the epidemic at the end of the nine- teenth century. For the duration of the epidemic 65 For more on these issues, see Bratož, Bolni otroci. 66 Schrom Dye and Smith, Mother Love, p. 338. Nonetheless, the parents’ responsibility for the health of their children was also understood in moral–religious terms (Cf. Košar, Od tele- sne reje otrok; Kern, Nauk, p. 9). 67 Schrom Dye and Smith, Mother Love, p. 345. Apart from the key question regarding the kind and size of audience that such literature reached, nothing is also known about the re- ception and interpretation of these arguments (Schrom Dye and Smith, Mother Love, p. 337). 68 See, e.g., Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, December 14th, 1861. wave, which began at the end of 1892 and lasted un- til 1894, the Trieste hospital registered 767 smallpox infections. Senior doctor Alessandro De Manussi,69 who took good note of the statistical data, also pro- vided the number of unvaccinated patients, albeit knowing that it could not always be confirmed with certainty. This number was particularly high in the youngest age group (up to five years) and in children aged up to fifteen years, and something similar held for the share of unvaccinated persons among the de- ceased. To a certain degree, this may be indicative of an irregular implementation of vaccination or its inadequate scope.70 Children aged up to ten years represented a 31.9% share among the infected, and the same age group accounted for as much as 61.8% of all deaths. Conversely, the effectiveness of vaccination can be indirectly inferred from numerical data on morbidity that were collected during the above-mentioned epi- demic in Koper in the 1870s, when (no more than) 13% of children aged up to ten years became infected (perhaps owing to regular vaccination of children in a certain period), and the age group between twen- ty-one and forty represented the largest segment, almost 51% of all infected.71 The disease posed an especially serious threat to the youngest children (up to the age of five), as shown by the ratio between recoveries and deaths in this age group. Specifically, more than half of children aged up to five years died 69 De Manussi, Cenni. 70 According to some authors, however, vaccination usually cov- ered most, even 90% of Trieste’s population, with no major resistance against this practice being reported from at least 1840 onward (Scartabellati, Visibili nemici, p. 532). 71 There was quite possibly no routine vaccination of adults to boost their immunity against smallpox. What should also be borne in mind is that this age group was mostly composed of active population, characterized by occupational mobility, which means that a part probably came from elsewhere. Fig. 4: The smallpox epidemic in Koper in 1872 (source: SI PAK KP 7, t. u. 110, a. u. 2122). 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 to 80 81 to 90 e age structure of the infected deceased recovered 113 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–1182022 from smallpox—a significant share, given that lethal- ity in other groups did not exceed 13%.72 (Re)vaccination in the nineteenth-century Littoral In the first half of the century, smallpox vacci- nations in the Koper district were implemented fairly regularly among the youngest children, both in towns (Koper, Muggia) and rural areas.73 When faced with an imminent outbreak, the authorities also revaccinated children and adults. Revaccination was particularly crucial because vaccination alone did not ensure lasting immunity to smallpox. In 1833, for example, calls for revaccination came in the wake of a smallpox outbreak in the city penitentiary,74 where the physician Gian Andrea de Manzoni75 eventually administered the vaccine to 126 inmates who did not reject it or were not prevented from receiving it by their health condition. In the same period, the town registered another 353 vaccinated persons, mostly adults, aged between four and forty- seven years,76 heralding the beginning of more sys- tematic vaccination and revaccination campaigns. Regular vaccination (of children and unvaccinated persons) also took place on an annual basis, most likely leaning on the data from parish birth registers for the previous year. The physician first performed a test pre-vaccination (a week before compiling the list of vaccinated persons)77 and then the vaccination itself, followed by the evaluation of results a week later.78 Because the district physician’s responsibility spanned a sizeable territory, vaccination at each of the ten designated points in the countryside was car- 72 SI PAK KP 7, t. u. 110, a. u. 2122. See also Bratož, Cepljenje proti kozam. 73 Villages included in the vaccination of 1831 and 1832, re- spectively, were Čežarji, Dekani, Osp, Loka, Kubed, Movraž, Topolovec (or Gradin), Truške, and Koštabona. 74 Cf. Kramar, Epidemije, p. 110. 75 A decades-long district physician, Manzoni (1798–1872) was an ardent and several times awarded promotor of vacci- nation, and one of the first in the province to propose revac- cination, which he also administered in Koper (SI PAK KP 304, carton 5, a. u. 9a, Correspondenza officiosa 1854–1857; SI PAK KP 304, a. u. 21). 76 SI PAK KP 304, a. u. 21; see also Bratož, Cepljenje proti kozam. 77 Unfortunately, the data do not show clearly how many per- sons received the vaccine and whether it was merely the vac- cination of children or (also) the revaccination of adults. 78 The law of 1821 already stipulated that a physician must visit every vaccinated person at least twice within the first nine days following the vaccination to make sure that the proce- dure went well (Dizionario di igiene pubblica). However, in addition to poor interest in public vaccination campaigns, medical assessment of vaccination performance was some- times rendered difficult by parents rejecting to vaccinate their children (see, e.g., Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, September 15th, 1855). This is probably also confirmed by Simon Rutar (Samosvoje mesto Trst, p. 147), who maintains that of alto- gether 6,932 vaccinated children in Istria in 1893, 31.6 % cases remained unchecked. ried out in a day, whereas the target population in the district seat, the town of Koper, was much bigger and required vaccination to take place every eight days over a period of four months.79 In 1835,80 altogether 838 children received the vaccine in the district of Koper—192 in the town itself81 and the rest across the wider district area. The physician administered the liquid vaccine in nearly 93% of all cases and the dry powder vaccine in oth- ers. This may suggest that he applied the dry powder vaccine first for the lack of pustules from which the liquid vaccine was collected. The majority of the for- ty-two children who did not receive the vaccine were too weak or too sickly to endure the procedure, and only six failed to show up for vaccination. Regular and systematic vaccination continued in midsummer; in 1850, vaccine was administered to 1,145 persons and forty-four of those who had not taken part in vaccination in the previous year. The procedure was performed in the following locations: Koper, Riža- na (Lazaret), Dekani, Muggia, Osp, Loka, Kubed, Truške and Koštabona, Krkavče, Šmarje, Sv. Anton, Plavje, Ricmanje (San Giuseppe della Chiusa), Boršt (San Antonio in Bosco), Gročana (Grozzana), Pod- gorje, Klanec, Pomjan, Marezige, Dolina (San Dor- ligo della Valle), and Tinjan. In 1852, for example, fifty-seven persons remained unvaccinated from the previous year and 1,174 were revaccinated (hence, altogether 1,231). That same year, revaccination was performed as well, in the town itself strictly limited to institutions: the penitentiary (248 vaccinated), the secondary school for girls (thirty-one) and boys (fif- ty), the grammar school (thirty-six), and the kinder- garten (twenty-seven). Outside Koper, revaccination took place in the above-listed villages; 1,956 people received the vaccine across the entire territory under the care of the district physician.82 Preparing for the looming epidemic threat in ear- ly 1872, the authorities in Trieste called for vacci- nation and revaccination and, due to poor response, repeated the call in May.83 One Trieste physician complained about the low figures in vaccination re- ports, stating that about six thousand vaccinated per- sons amounted to no more than 5%—a drop in the ocean compared to the needs of Trieste’s total pop- ulation of 124,855.84 Dismissing the official mea- 79 SI PAK KP 304, a. u. 21; September 1st, 1831, and Septem- ber 10th, 1832. 80 SI PAK KP 304, a. u. 21. 81 Of all children vaccinated in the town, twenty-three were aged between one and five years, six between one and two weeks, and 163 between one and eleven months. In the coun- tryside, 98.3% of vaccinated children were younger than two years, and the oldest was aged fourteen. 82 SI PAK KP 7, t. u. 19, a. u. 340. 83 Pinguentini, Cronache, p. 36. 84 Scartabellati, Visibili nemici. Of course, refusing vaccination, which had failed to produce a desirable response, also pre- sented a problem elsewhere; for Ljubljana, see, e.g., Vodopi- vec, Črne koze. 114 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–118 2022 sures as clearly insufficient, city physicians organized themselves and established a special private vacci- nation committee85 which performed vaccination at the Mauroner Theater both against payment86 (five forints per individual and ten per family) and free of charge for those who demonstrated their eligibil- ity for free vaccination with a certificate issued by the commander of their quarter. Home vaccination was also organized. Unfortunately, even this initia- tive failed short of producing a significant impact, registering 312 persons vaccinated against payment and no more than 152 persons receiving the vaccine free of charge.87 The authorities considered introducing stricter regulations to impose mandatory vaccination; how- ever, the overall social climate made it increasingly clear that a consensus would be difficult to reach. The 85 A similar private initiative most likely led to the vaccination of 2,100 persons in 1893, as mentioned by Rutar (Samosvoje mesto Trst, p. 147), in addition to 4,494 persons immunized within the framework of public vaccination. 86 Apart from resistance, this was undoubtedly another factor that importantly disincentivized many from being vaccinat- ed. Perhaps it seems reasonable to concur that the overall willingness to take the vaccine, no matter how paradoxically it may sound, declined during the epidemic because of the growing fear and the increasingly entrenched prejudices (Scartabellati, Visibili nemici, p. 532). 87 Pinguentini, Cronache, p. 37. esteemed Trieste physician with long years of service, Alessandro Goracucchi (otherwise an adherent of the anti-contagionist theory, which rejected the idea that some diseases such as cholera were contagious), for example, opposed mandatory (re)vaccination as contrary to personal freedom and instead proposed using means of persuasion (such as a popular hand- book on the benefits of vaccination).88 Elsewhere, too, the proponents of vaccination clashed with lib- eral and laissez-faire principles, for example, J. Simon in Britain,89 whose proposal for mandatory vacci- nation was believed to threat individual freedom of choice for the benefit of collective good. There is no denying that medical debates were also shaped by the economic interests, especially in Trieste as the Aus- trian maritime trade center, where, invested with the liberal logic, they defied quarantines and any kind of constraint. On the other hand, discordant opinions within the medical science itself were of no benefit to spreading the pro-vaccination propaganda, which often met with broad resistance as it were. 88 Ibid., p. 39. 89 Bynum, Medicina, p. 470. Vacination of children in the countryside (Rudolph Carl Gottfried von Geißler: Die Gartenlaube, 1867; Wikimedia Commons). 115 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–1182022 Conclusion The article discusses the key prophylaxis to pre- vent smallpox infection and an early form of immu- nization before the discovery of viruses—vaccina- tion, i.e., application of the cow vaccine, which was in use from the beginning of the nineteenth century. There was a notable emphasis on vaccination as a measure that prolonged longevity (or, rather, reduced mortality in children) and contributed to the general wellbeing of humankind. By creating a regulatory framework, the state sought to maximize the accept- ance of this practice; however, still decades after it was introduced, vaccination continued to be targeted by a range of disincentivizing discourses (from the fear of introducing foreign matter into the human body and the fear of moral contamination, to liberal principles promulgating an individual’s freedom of decision). The authorities, the clergy, and scientists therefore sought to achieve the broadest possible awareness about the necessity of vaccination through various communication channels. The examples presented, and particularly the epi- demic of 1872, which spread from its original focus in Trieste to the nearby districts (especially that of Koper) and from there to other provinces, including Carniola, also point to the widespread prevalence of smallpox epidemics in the second half of the nine- teenth century and in a way testify to the inadequate prophylactic effectiveness. The latter was probably largely based on the engagement shown by health workers in key positions (district physicians), with whom lied the vaccination initiative, and in part also on the level of responsiveness among the population to many calls and the rhetoric of persuasion—an as- pect that has so far received the least research atten- tion. More detailed vaccination records of the Koper district document systematic vaccination campaigns that took place both in cities and rural areas, where the vaccine was administered to newborns in an es- pecially consistent manner. The first vaccination of children was regular and systematic, and the general revaccination was mainly carried out when facing an epidemic threat. The effectiveness of revaccination was much more questionable, as also confirmed by a considerable share of the infected in some young and old age groups who had been vaccinated but most likely only once, in their childhood. Yet it was pre- cisely revaccination, for which the various authori- ties’ public appeals were the least successful, that was most urgently needed for maintaining the popula- tion’s immunity, given that the effectiveness of the vaccine wore out within ten years of the first admin- istration. REFERENCES ARCHIVAL SOURCES SI PAK KP – Pokrajinski arhiv Koper (Regional Ar- chives of Koper) PAK KP 7, Občina Koper [Municipality of Ko- per] PAK KP 304, Družina Manzoni [Manzoni fa- mily] ŠAK – Škofijski arhiv Koper (Diocesan Archives of Koper) ŠAK, register of deaths (Koper), 1847–1874 ŠAK, register of deaths (Koper), 1875–1899 NEWSPAPERS Kmetijske in rokodelske novice, 1854, 1855, 1861, 1874. La Provincia, 1870, 1872, 1873. Slovenski narod, 1877. Vrtec, 1880, 1885. LITERATURE AND PUBLISHED SOURCES Borisov, Peter: Zgodovina medicine: poskus sinteze medicinske misli. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1985. Bratož [Železnik], Urška: Bolni otroci in starševske skrbi: odnos do otroškega zdravja na primeru preprečevanja koz v 19. stol. Zgodovina otroštva (eds. Aida Škoro Babić, Mateja Jeraj, Matevž Ko- šir, Bojan Balkovec). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovin- skih društev Slovenije, 2012, pp. 438–449. Bratož [Železnik], Urška: Cepljenje proti kozam v koprskem okraju v 30. letih 19. stoletja. Acta me- dico-historica Adriatica 12, 2014, n. 2, pp. 259–274. Bratož [Železnik], Urška: Umazane ulice, nezrelo sadje in kužni hlapi: kaj imajo skupnega policija, zdravje in zdravstvena policija. Acta Histriae 18, 2010, n. 3, pp. 627–650. Bratož, Urška: Bledolična vsiljivka z Vzhoda: kolera v severozahodni Istri (1830–1890). Koper: Založba Annales ZRS Koper, 2017. Bratož, Urška: Vojna, lakota in bolezen: po sledeh španske gripe v Kopru. Acta Histriae 28, 2020, n. 1, pp. 21–40. Brisky, Livia and Krželj, Vjekoslav and Lozić, Ber- narda and Kuzmanić Šamija, Radenka and Bri- sky, Tibor: Introduction of Obligatory Vaccinati- on Against Smallpox in Dalmatia and the City of Split During the First Half of the 19th Century. Paediatria Croatica 56, 2012, n. 1, pp. 83–88. Bynum, William F.: Medicina e società. Storia del pensiero medico occidentale. Vol. II. Dal rinascimento all'inizio dell'ottocento (ed. Mirko Dražen Grmek). Roma, Bari: Laterza, 1996, pp. 451–492. 116 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–118 2022 Ciatto, Carlo: Il Vaiuolo e la Vaccinazione. Lezione. Trieste: Appolonio & Caprin, 1872. Cigui, Rino: Le origini dell’innesto profilatico del vaiolo in Istria e il ruolo del protomedico pro- vinciale Ignazio Lotti. Atti CRS, XLV, 2015, pp. 265–295. Cigui, Rino: Misure di profilassi in Istria nella prima metà del XIX secolo. La vaccinazione antivaiolo- sa della popolazione infantile durante la domina- zione francese e austriaca. Filii, filiae,…: položaj i uloga djece na jadranskom prostoru. 4. Istarski povi- jesni biennale. Poreč, Pazin, Pula: Zavičajni muzej Poreštine, Državni arhiv, Sveučilište Jurja Dobri- le, 2011, pp. 239–256. Čeč, Dragica: »Da bo dobro izbral med tistimi po- tencialnimi rejniškimi starši, ki bodo najbolje iz- polnjevali namene njegovega Veličanstva«: o vlogi posrednika pri oskrbi najdenčkov. Acta Histriae 21, 2013, n. 3, pp. 204–205. Čeč, Dragica: Revščina kot grožnja družbenemu redu v 18. stoletju. Acta Histriae 24, 2016, n. 2, pp. 291–312. De Manussi, Alessandro: Cenni clinico-statistici sull'epidemia del vaiolo in Trieste: dal 1892 al 1894. Trieste: Tipografia Morterra, 1895. Dizionario di igiene pubblica e di polizia sanitaria ad uso dei medici e dei magistrati dell'ordine ammini- strativo, Vol. 4. Milano: G. Favale e C., 1860. Durbach, Nadja: Smallpox, Vaccination and the Marked Body. A Cultural History of the Human Body in the Age of Empire (eds. Michael Sappol, Stephen P. Rice). Oxford: Berg, 2010, pp. 191– 212. Globočnik, Anton: Nauk slovenskim županom, kakó jim je délati, kadar opravljajo domačega in izroče- nega podróčja dolžnósti. Ljubljana: Klein in Kovač, 1880. Hamlin, Christopher: Commentaries on “The Fate of the concept of Medical Police 1780–1890” by George Rosen. Commentary 01: The Fate of “The Fate of the Concept of Medical Police”. Centaurus, vol. 50, 2008, pp. 63–69. Kern, Vincenc: Nauk od koze stavlenja. Ljubljana: J. F. Eger, 1799. Kiple, Kenneth F.: The Cambridge world history of hu- man disease. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Košar, Franc: Od telesne reje otrok. Drobtinice, za novo leto 1852. Kozinc, Željko: Prebolela sem črne koze. Tovariš, 28, 1972, n. 14, pp. 12–13. Kramar, Janez: Epidemije v Slovenski Istri. Zgodo- vinski časopis 49, 1995, n. 1, pp. 99–111. Lipič, Fran Vilijem: Topografija c.-kr. deželnega glav- nega mesta Ljubljane z vidika naravoslovja in me- dicine, zdravstvene ureditve in biostatike (1834). Ljubljana: Znanstveno društvo za zgodovino zdravstvene kulture Slovenije, 2003. Mascherpa, Guiseppe: Sulla Vaccinazione Opuscolo Medico-Politico. Pavia: Bizzoni, 1834. Muznik, Anton: Goriško podnebje = Clima Goritiense. Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgodovino medicine Medi- cinske fakultete, Znanstveno društvo za zgodovi- no zdravstvene kulture Slovenije, 2000. Pinguentini, Gianni: Cronache di 75 anni or sono il vaiuolo del 1872 a Trieste. Porta orientale, 1–3, 1947, pp. 36–40. Prinzing, Friedrich: Epidemics Resulting from Wars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916. Resoconto sanitario dello spedale civico di Trieste per l'anno 1894: XXII annata. Trieste: Municipio, 1896. Robida, Karel: Zdravo telo nar boljši blago, alj navk zdravje ohraniti. V Celovci: Janes Leon, 1846. Rutar, Simon: Samosvoje mesto Trst in mejna grofija Istra: prirodoznanski, statistični, kulturni in zgodo- vinski opis. Ljubljana: Matica Slovenska, 1896. Scartabellati, Andrea: Visibili nemici dei pitocchi. La lotta al vaiolo e al colera come laboratorio delle moderne forme di interventismo sociale. L’esperienza triestina, 1850–1886. Igiene e Sanità Pubblica, LXIV, 2008, n. 4, pp. 521–543. Schrom Dye, Nancy and Smith, Daniel Blake: Mother Love and Infant Death, 1750–1920. The Journal of American History, vol. 73, 1986, n. 2, pp. 329–353. Simonič, Jurij: Kakó postanemo stari?: vodilo po kate- rem se doseže najvišja starost: neobhodno potrebna knjiga in svetovalec za vsacega, kdor želi biti in osta- ti zdrav. Bistrica, 1893. Slomšek, Anton Martin: Blaže ino Nežica v nedelski šoli. Graz: Andreja Lajkama nasledniki, 1842. Thacker, Eugene: The Shadows of Atheology: Epi- demics, Power and Life after Foucault. Theory, Culture & Society 26, 2009, pp. 134–152. Travner, Vladimir: Kuga na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Življenje in svet, 1934. Vodopivec, Peter: Črne koze na Kranjskem in v Ljub- ljani v letih 1873/74. Kronika 20, 1972, n. 2, pp. 92–96. Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Goriški medicus Anton Muznik in medicina. Goriško podnebje. Ljublja- na: Inštitut za zgodovino medicine Medicinske fakultete = Institute for History of Medicine of Medical Faculty: Znanstveno društvo za zgodo- vino zdravstvene kulture Slovenije = Scientific Society of Slovenian Health Culture, 2000, pp. 207–231. Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Mlekarice ne obolevajo za črnimi kozami. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja, 1861–1883 (ur. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova re- vija, 2003, pp. 146–147. 117 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–1182022 INTERNET SOURCES Agostoni, Claudia: Knowledge, Actors and Strategies: Smallpox Vaccination in Mexico City, 1803–1872. In: Nuevo Mundo, Mundos Nuevo: https://journals.openedition.org/nuevomun- do/75397 Notificazione del Magistrato civico di Trieste sul vaiolo, September 10th 1885: https://archiviodistatotrieste.it/documento-del- -mese/notificazione-del-magistrato-civico-di- -trieste-sul-vaiolo/ P O V Z E T E K Preprečevanje črnih koz v Avstrijskem pri- morju Članek predstavlja izvedbo vakcinacije (ceplje- nja z govejo vakcino) kot ključne profilakse pri črnih kozah, ki je bila tudi v habsburških deželah v upo- rabi od začetka 19. stoletja. Analiza kvantitativnih podatkov za območje Avstrijskega primorja (zlasti Koper in Trst kot pomembno epidemično žarišče) kaže na obsežnost in pogostost epidemij črnih koz tudi v drugi polovici 19. stoletja, kar odpira vprašanja o obsegu in kontinuiteti izvajanja teh profilaktičnih ukrepov, na drugi pa tudi o odzivnosti prebivalstva na pozive k cepljenju. Država je z regulativi tudi poskušala doseči čim večjo razširjenost te prakse, vendar pa so jo še dolga desetletja po njeni uvedbi spremljali različni odklo- nilni diskurzi. S pozivi prebivalstvu preko različnih komunikacijskih kanalov so zato oblasti, cerkev in stroka skušali ozavestiti širše množice o potrebnosti cepljenja, ki se je umeščalo v diskurz državne skr- bi za dobrobit prebivalstva in zmanjševanja otroške umrljivosti. Ključnega pomena pa je bila tudi revak- cinacija, saj cepljenje z govejo vakcino ni zagotavljalo trajne imunosti. Če je za obravnavano območje zna- čilno dokaj redno in sistematično izvajanje cepljenja novorojenih otrok, katerih število je bilo mogoče natančno nadzorovati, je za splošne revakcinacije prebivalstva veljalo, da so bile izvedene predvsem ob neposrednih grožnjah epidemij, njihov domet pa je bil veliko bolj vprašljiv. 118 URŠKA BRATOŽ: SMALLPOX PREVENTION IN THE AUSTRIAN LITTORAL, 105–118 2022 An early 19th century cartoon that reflects the fear of the effects of Jenner’s vaccination ( James Gillray, 1802; Wikimedia Commons) 119 2022 SPECIAL ISSUE UDK 616.912:616-036.22(497.4)"1873/1874"(054) Luka Hekič BA in History, Sadjarska ulica 24, SI–2327 Rače Email: luka.hekic@gmail.com Newspaper reporting on the smallpox epidemic in Carniola in 1873–1874 ABSTRACT The article analyzes the smallpox epidemic between 1873 and 1874 in Carniola through reporting of Slovenian and German newspapers. These also provide the basis for a detailed study of the spread of the disease in Carniola, measures adopted by the provincial authorities and their infringement, as well as the consequences for the popula- tion that smallpox left in its wake. With a further focus on Ljubljana, the article also investigates the number of the deceases and their social structure at the zenith of the epidemic. By analyzing these processes, it aims to demonstrate the course of the smallpox epidemic in Carniola as reported in newspapers and the way in which newspapers set on notifying the public daily about the disease. KEY WORDS Carniola, Ljubljana, epidemic, smallpox, newspapers IZVLEČEK POROČANJE ČASOPISJA O EPIDEMIJI ČRNIH KOZ NA KRANJSKEM V LETIH 1873–1874 Članek analizira epidemijo črnih koz v letih 1873 in 1874 na Kranjskem skozi poročanje slovenskega in nemške- ga časopisja. Pri tem s pomočjo časnikov podrobneje raziskuje širitev bolezni na Kranjskem, ukrepe deželnih oblasti in njihove kršitve ter posledice, ki so jih črne koze pustile pri prebivalstvu. Dodatno, s poudarkom na Ljubljani, razisku- je število umrlih ter njihovo socialno strukturo na vrhuncu epidemije. Z analizo teh procesov skuša članek prikazati, kako je potekala epidemija črnih koz na Kranjskem glede na poročanje časopisja ter na kakšen način so se časniki lotili vsakdanjega obveščanja javnosti o bolezni. KLJUČNE BESEDE Kranjska, Ljubljana, epidemija, črne koze, časopisje 120 LUKA HEKIČ: NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874, 119–126 2022 Introduction1 Smallpox (Ger.: schwarze Pocken or Blattern) was a contagious disease in humans caused by two known variants of the variola virus: the severe variola maior (ca. 30% mortality) and the milder variola minor (ca. 1–2% mortality). The virus was spread by droplets from the mouth and nose when sneezing, coughing, or through contact with contaminated body fluids and objects (e.g., clothes). The symptoms included red rash, fever, vomiting, fatigue, and often also de- hydration. Those who successfully recovered from the disease were usually left with scars all over the body (especially on the face, which often had psy- chological consequences), and not a small number of people suffered partial or complete blindness. The disease could only be contracted once, and on recov- ery a person developed lasting immunity to smallpox. There was no medicine for smallpox, and the only way to prevent infection was through immunization, which was achieved by using two methods. The first one, variolization (derived from the term variola), was used to confer immunity by inserting the mate- rial collected from the vesicle of an infected person into an incision in the skin, which most often re- sulted in a milder form of the disease. After success- ful recovery, a person developed lasting immunity to smallpox. The second example was vaccination (from the Latin word vacca or cow),2 a similar procedure that used the cowpox instead of the smallpox virus. Unlike variolization, this method only generated short-term immunity, which required revaccination, but it also had a somewhat lower mortality than var- iolization.3 The disease already occurred in the Habsburg Monarchy before the nineteenth century in a wave of European epidemics, and it also aroused attention of many physicians that worked in Carniola at one time or another.4 One of the last smallpox outbreaks in Europe took place in Yugoslavia in 1972, where the disease first appeared in Kosovo, whereas Slovenia re- corded not a single case of infection, thanks to strict measures and mass vaccination.5 Today, smallpox has 1 The article is based on a term paper for the study course Selected Chapters from the Nineteenth-Century Slovenian History under the mentorship of Katarina Keber. 2 Vaccination and revaccination were also widely used during the period discussed in this article. 3 “Smallpox” (https://www.britannica.com/science/smallpox (October 23rd, 2019)); Grignolio, Kdo se boji cepiv?, pp. 49– 52; Kos, Epidemija, pp. 288–292. 4 The disease was, among others, described by the physician Fran Viljem Lipič in his work Bolezni Ljubljančanov and be- fore him by the physicians Balthasar Hacquet from Idrija, Anton Muznik from Gorizia, and Vincenc Kern from Ljub- ljana. 5 Epidemija črnih koz v Jugoslaviji (http://zgodovina.si/epi- demija-crnih-koz-v-jugoslaviji/ (October 15th, 2020)); Li- pič, Bolezni Ljubljančanov, pp. 153 and 160. been eradicated worldwide, as also confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1980.6 Although the smallpox epidemic also raged in Carniola between 1873 and 1874, it is not often treated in Slovenian historiography. The only ex- ception is a detailed discussion by Peter Vodopivec, who drew on newspapers, annual statistics, and other sources from the Historical Archives Ljubljana and the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia. His article Črne koze na Kranjskem in v Ljubljani v letih 1873/74 (Smallpox in Carniola and Ljubljana in 1873/74) was later also summarized by Andrej Studen in Kro- nika 19. stoletja (The Chronicle of the Nineteenth Century) for the purposes of composing a short lexical entry Huda epidemija črnih koz (Devastating Smallpox Epidemic). On the other hand, several historians have written about smallpox (especially the eighteenth-century epidemics) and vaccina- tion in general. In her contribution Bolni otroci in starševske skrbi: odnos do otroškega zdravja na prime- ru prepričevanja koz v 19. stol. (Sick Children and Parental Care. Attitude toward Child Health and the Case of Smallpox Prevention in the Nineteenth Century), Urška Železnik describes, among other things, the overall attitude toward smallpox vaccina- tion and ways in which the government sought to motivate the public to get vaccinated. Drawing on the statistical analysis and the documentation of the physician Gian Andrea Manzoni, the same author also provided a detailed study in her article Cepljenje proti kozam v koprskem okraju v 30. letih 19. stoletja (Smallpox Vaccination in the Koper District Dur- ing the 1830s) about the process and the extent of smallpox vaccination in Koper and its surroundings. Although Marjana Kos devoted a segment of her Master thesis Življenje v Ljubljani ob koncu 18. in na začetku 19. stoletja (Life in Ljubljana at the End of the 6 “Smallpox” (https://www.who.int/csr/disease/smallpox/en/ (October 23rd, 2019)). Patient infected with the smallpox virus (https://novice.svet24.si/clanek/ zanimivosti/585aafb431e94/bolezen-moderne-dobe) 121 LUKA HEKIČ: NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874, 119–1262022 Eighteenth and in the Early Nineteenth Century) to the smallpox epidemic between 1873 and 1874, her work largely focuses on analyzing vaccination as well as the treatment and burial of smallpox victims. Kos also wrote the article Epidemije črnih koz v Ljublja- ni v drugi polovici 18. stoletja (Smallpox Epidemics in Ljubljana in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century) based on death registers, newspapers, and administrative materials, in which she described the spread of both types of vaccination to Carniola and studied smallpox epidemics in Slovenian territory in the second half of the eighteenth century.7 This article aims to fill certain gaps in the knowl- edge about the course of the epidemic between 1873 and 1874, as well as bring forth the first study of newspaper reporting on smallpox in Carniola and determine the social structure of the deceased with an emphasis on Ljubljana when the epidemic reached its peak.8 The onset of the epidemic in the Habsburg Monarchy and rare cases of infection in Carniola After the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), a new smallpox epidemic swept through Europe, caus- ing the greatest devastation in the Habsburg Monar- chy between 1872 and 1874 during its gradual spread across its territory. The most affected provinces were Lower Austria, Salzburg, Silesia, and Trieste in the south.9 In 1873, the disease also took hold in Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, where it peaked in the first quarter of 1874.10 Until March 1873, smallpox incidences in Car- niola were hardly ever mentioned in Slovenian and German newspapers and remained in the shadow of drawing up the new election act.11 On March 7th, 1873, Slovenski narod was the first to report “that smallpox and cholera patients [were] admitted to the city hospital for such time as [was] necessary to prevent these diseases from escalating into epidemics, after the provin- cial hospital could not accommodate them in a separate area.”12 This clearly shows that smallpox incidence 7 Further details on the works are specified in the list of litera- ture. 8 During the time of writing the article, when measures to re- verse the spread of Covid-19 were in place, the figures on deaths from newspapers could not be verified in death regis- ters of Ljubljana’s parishes due to the closure of archives. 9 At that time, Trieste, Istria, and Gorizia-Gradisca formed part of the Austrian Littoral, which was severely affected by the epidemic—in all probability, smallpox spread throughout Carniola from there (Vodopivec, Črne koze, p. 92; Slovenski zgodovinski atlas, p. 148). 10 Vodopivec, Črne koze, pp. 92–96; Železnik, Bolni otroci, pp. 438–449. 11 For the Austrian half of the monarchy, the above-mentioned act from 1873 introduced direct election to the Imperial Council in Vienna in the form of four curiae (Cvirn, Dunajs- ki državni zbor, pp. 128–129). 12 Slovenski narod, March 7th, 1873, p. 3. rate in Ljubljana and Carniola did not deviate from the average at that time. Two days later, the same newspaper reported on smallpox infections in Kranj- ska Gora and stressed that the number of patients in the provincial hospital in Ljubljana had slightly increased, even though it still indicated individual, unrelated cases from various areas across Carniola.13 At the end of March, Slovenski narod reported on new smallpox infections and lack of space in the pro- vincial hospital, but without causing alarm over the slight increase in morbidity.14 In early April, newspapers again reported on a few new smallpox infections and a death (of a wom- an), adding for Ljubljana that although “the disease [had] not evolved into an epidemic, the city [continued] to register individual smallpox infections”, and called on the population to protect itself to the maximum extent possible.15 Then, the news of smallpox and infections quieted down until the end of April and reappeared again in early May 1873 with reports on a few infected individuals and a small (unspecified) number of victims.16 At the end of July, new reports about the diseases surfaced in Kranj and its sur- roundings, and a slight increase in infections was also observed in the surroundings of Ljubljana (Vižmarje and Medvode).17 Nonetheless, smallpox still did not spread widely across the province. Between August and October, there was again si- lence, with not a word about the disease to be found in Slovenski narod and no news in the newly established Slovenec.18 Only Laibacher Zeitung noted a few cases of smallpox in Ljubljana and its surroundings, but it said nothing about an epidemic. Isolated smallpox incidences were casually mentioned together with other seasonal diseases, such as tuberculosis, angina, and typhus.19 The mass spread of the disease to Carniola and the adoption of protective measures In November, Slovenski narod wrote nothing specific about smallpox and remained largely con- centrated on the election to the provincial assembly, which took place on November 11th, 1873—unlike Slovenec, which did report a few times on the disease. In the middle of the month, it published a letter from Graz, where smallpox already seemed to be abating due to winter. However, by mid-month, the Styrian 13 Slovenski narod, March 9th, 1873, p. 3. 14 Slovenski narod, March 30th, 1873, p. 3. 15 Slovenski narod, April 3rd, 1873, p. 3. 16 Slovenski narod, May 4th, 1873, p. 3. 17 Slovenski narod, July 31st, 1873, p. 2. 18 The first issue of Slovenec was brought out in October 1873. Initially, it was published twice or three times weekly, hence the somewhat limited body of information on the epidemic; Slovenec, October 14th, 1873, p. 1. 19 Laibacher Zeitung, October 3rd, 1873, p. 3; October 10th, 1873, p. 3; October 20th, 1873, p. 3; October 22nd, 1873, p. 3. 122 LUKA HEKIČ: NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874, 119–126 2022 capital observed a new surge in infections, and the press feared that the movements of the army would trigger a mass spread of the disease from Styria to Carniola.20 Toward the end of the month, the same newspaper started to issue increasingly frequent re- ports on smallpox-related deaths.21 Also noting the growing incidence of the disease, in mid-November Laibacher Zeitung wrote that smallpox infections were on the rise, causing above-average mortality in children and adults. Nonetheless, in November 1873, tuberculosis still featured as the disease that affected the highest number of Ljubljana’s inhabitants.22 In mid-December, Slovenski narod noted a high incidence of smallpox in Ljubljana’s surroundings and “that several high school pupils in Ljubljana also showed symptoms of smallpox.”23 On December 19th, 1873, newspapers pointed to the growing number of new infections among schoolchildren, forbid- ding school attendance to all children whose family members had contracted smallpox.24 The very next day, the authorities passed even stricter measures by closing the gymnasium, the secondary school (Ger.: Realschule), and all public schools in Ljubljana for three weeks. This was also the first time in 1873 that the newspaper wrote about a spreading epidemic.25 By the end of the month, reports on infections be- gan to circulate throughout Carniola. On Christmas Day, for example, all schools were shut down in Novo Mesto, and the Poljane hospital in Ljubljana, already running beyond its capacity, had to open a new pro- visional hospital in Trnovo, which reportedly filled up in a few days. Patients also received in-home care from private physicians, and the specifically desig- nated sanitary police was called in to do a house- to-house search for many infected who did not seek medical help at all.26 On the last day of 1873, the authorities issued a proclamation on extending the closure of schools in Ljubljana for a month (until the 20 Slovenec, November 20th, 1873, p. 3. 21 Slovenec, November 11th, 1873, p. 4; November 25th, 1873, p. 4; November 27th, 1873, p. 4; November 29th, 1873, p. 4. 22 Laibacher Zeitung, November 15th, 1873, p. 4. 23 Slovenski narod, December 17th, 1873, p. 3. 24 Slovenski narod, December 19th, 1873, p. 3. 25 Slovenski narod, December 20th, 1873, p. 3; Slovenec, Decem- ber 20th, 1873, p. 4. 26 Slovenski narod, December 25th, 1873, p. 3; December 28th, 1873, p. 4; December 30th, 1873, p. 3. end of January 1874) or until the end of the epidemic in Carniola.27 December 1873 thus brought about a turning point, with smallpox spreading throughout Carniola and newspapers now reporting almost daily on new infections and the provincial government taking the first measures to reverse the epidemic. In the last week of December, Slovenski narod regularly criticized the provincial government for its failure to effectively tackle the smallpox epidemic, which now threatened to continue spreading unhindered and to claim an untold number of more victims. In the first quarter of 1874, the smallpox epidem- ic reached its peak in Carniola. On New Year’s Day, a permanent (sanitary) commission was set up at the city hall in Ljubljana with the main task to prevent the spread of the epidemic. It was composed of the mayor, four city councilors, two physicians, and the city’s chief advisor.28 At its first session, the commis- sion passed two measures: to augment the capacity of the provisional hospital in Trnovo to receive fifty more patients and to disinfect the patients’ clothes, even at the city’s expense for those who could not af- ford it.29 According to newspaper reports, the num- ber of smallpox deaths surged in January 1874 and the provincial government used the record amount of health funds for treating smallpox and cholera pa- tients.30 As numerous letters from across the province reveal, in mid-January smallpox continued to spread throughout Carniola, forcing the sanitary commis- sion in Ljubljana to extend the imposed school holi- day for (at least) until February 3rd, 1874, whereas the authorities in Novo Mesto prolonged it (at least) until January 27th.31 The last third of the month wit- nessed ever more frequent reports about the surge in smallpox infections precisely in Novo Mesto and its surroundings—the local hospital had exceeded its capacity and the dread of the disease was so great that “no one dared to visit their neighbor’s house so as not to contract smallpox”.32 In the Carniolan capital, an uproar was set off by the news that infected in- mates were being transported from Ljubljana Castle to the provisional hospital in Trnovo, as many citi- zens feared their escape.33 Then at the end of January, reports on a severe outbreak of smallpox also sur- faced in Kranj and its surroundings, also leaving the local inhabitants too afraid to leave their homes. Of- ficial reports stated high numbers of infections and deaths among children, and the increasing morbidity 27 Slovenski narod, December 31st, 1873. 28 The press here only mentions a commission without stating the names of its members. 29 Slovenski narod, January 1st, 1874, p. 3; Laibacher Zeitung, January 2nd, 1874, p. 3. 30 Slovenski narod, January 8th, 1874, p. 3. 31 Slovenski narod, January 14th, 1874, p. 3; January 15th, 1874, p. 3; Slovenec, January 20th, 1874, p. 4. 32 Slovenski narod, January 18th, 1874, p. 3. 33 Slovenski narod, January 20th, 1874, p. 3. Newspaper article on school closures in Novo Mesto (Slovenski narod, December 25th, 1873). 123 LUKA HEKIČ: NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874, 119–1262022 was soon also observed in adults.34 At the same time, the sanitary commission in Ljubljana published the following additional measures to end the spread of the epidemic: physicians were to report the number of smallpox infections, all classrooms and personal objects of the deceased were to be disinfected, and school holiday, as already stated, was extended un- til February 3rd.35 Although the situation was ex- tremely serious, newspapers reiterated at the end of January 1874 that the epidemic was already losing its breath and that such prolonged school closures were uncalled for. They also repeatedly called on the provincial government to introduce mandatory smallpox vaccination as the most effective and rea- sonable method of protection against the spread of the disease. Although schools in Ljubljana reopened on Feb- ruary 4th, teachers already complained that same day about “many pupils not coming to school, who [were] in perfectly good health but [lived] in the same household as smallpox patients.”36 All this points to the high numbers of the infected and those in close contact with them continuing to persist in early Febru- ary. High morbidity is also confirmed by the article published the next day on the hospitals in Poljane and Trnovo being again overloaded with smallpox patients.37 For the rest of the month, newspapers reported on numerous smallpox cases throughout Carniola, signaling that the epidemic was far from over and thus completely contradicting newspaper reports from the end of the previous month. The dis- ease even reached as far as Mount Nanos, something considered impossible due to its elevation and the constant wind, which were believed to protect those areas from all kinds of epidemic diseases.38 In Febru- ary, sections of Slovenski narod and Slovenec reporting on deaths and their causes still indicated a signifi- cant number of persons dying of smallpox. Laibacher Zeitung also featured an article assuring that “ist [...] Impfstoff zur Vaccination und Revaccination in guter Qualität aus der steiermärkisch landschaftlichen Impf- stoff-Regenerierungsanstalt [...] stets nach beliebigem Bedarf zu beziehen” (the substance for vaccination and revaccination coming from the Styrian provin- cial institution for vaccines is of high quality and readily available in any quantity).39 The statement most likely sought to persuade the greatest possible number of people to get vaccinated—a method that many newspapers regarded as the most effective in battling the epidemic.40 34 Slovenski narod, January 30th, 1874, p. 3. 35 Slovenec, January 29th, 1874, p. 3. 36 Slovenski narod, February 5th, 1874, p. 3. 37 Slovenski narod, February 6th, 1874, p. 3. 38 Slovenski narod, February 17th, 1874, p. 3. 39 Laibacher Zeitung, January 5th, 1874, p. 4. 40 Such articles were not a rarity. Throughout the epidemic, many newspapers devoted several sections urging the pop- Containing the disease. The end of the epidemic and its aftermath Still in early March 1874, some areas across Car- niola reported on the persisting presence of small- pox and advised caution but added that the epidemic was less severe than in the previous two months. On March 21st, 1874, the end of the epidemic was de- clared in Novo Mesto, while reports about the epi- demic continued to trickle from other parts of the monarchy, especially from the neighboring Styria, where the highest number of cases were recorded in the Savinja Valley.41 A decline in smallpox deaths was also reported in newspaper sections on deaths and their causes. The provisional hospital for small- pox patients in Trnovo was closed in March but remained on alert for a new possible epidemic out- break.42 Over the next few months, news on the epi- demic in Carniola disappeared completely and the morbidity rates returned to normal. This raises the question of what really facilitated the containment of the epidemic. Had the measures imposed by the provincial government and the sanitary commission finally borne fruit? Was the end of the epidemic due to the weather change (the transition from winter to spring)? Or was it owed to a greater proportion of vaccinated population? Although the sources offer no definitive answer, the epidemic undoubtedly had profound physical and psychological implications. As already noted in the introduction, the disease left many survivors with scars and some of them blind. In many families, both parents contracted the disease and died of it, making their children orphans. On March 3rd, 1874, Slovenski narod stated an example of an entire family contracting smallpox (both par- ents and seven children) that was reduced to pov- erty after having lost their ability to work, source of income and all savings.43 The impact of the small- pox epidemic on the population in the first quar- ter of 1874 is even more vividly illustrated by how ulation to become vaccinated and the authorities to impose mandatory vaccination. 41 Slovenski narod, March 21st, 1874, p. 3. 42 Slovenski narod, March 22nd, 1874, p. 2. 43 Slovenski narod, March 3rd, 1874, p. 3. Newspaper article on closing the provisional hospital in Trnovo (Slovenski narod, March 22nd, 1874). 124 LUKA HEKIČ: NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874, 119–126 2022 the period was dubbed in the press—“the times of smallpox”.44 However, relief for Carniola was short- lived because a new wave of smallpox already hit in 1882. The reasons for the spread of the disease One of the main reasons that the epidemic swept across Carniola was improved connections between individual parts of the monarchy and faster mass movements facilitated by new inventions, most no- tably the construction of the Southern Railroad in 1875, linking Vienna with Trieste and partly also traversing Carniola with its capital Ljubljana. These changes intensified and accelerated the movement of people, trade contacts,45 and enabled a smoother circulation of soldiers, who were the most common transmitters of epidemics such as smallpox and chol- era in wartime. According to the Carniolan press, the epidemic first struck the areas along the Southern Railroad.46 Reading the newspaper reports also leaves one with the impression that, despite repeated calls for action, the measures introduced by the provincial government were not swift, adequate, and effective enough to stop the epidemic in its tracks. Yet part of the blame also rested on the Carniolans themselves, many of whom completely disregarded the protective measures or abided by them to the minimum extent possible. Thus, one could read in newspapers about “a property owner making a three-hour journey to settle legal matters at court, with a scarf wrapped around his head and his face and arms dotted with pustules that had already began to fill with pus”.47 People often refused to bid farewell from their deceased family members and kept their bodies in their homes for days; many failed to mount black signs signaling an infected household, the sick moved about freely and even frequented common areas (taverns, courts, churches, stores, and so on). Moreover, no prohibition was im- posed on visiting patients, whereas hygiene and dis- infection remained atrociously poor despite repeated warnings.48 According to newspapers, another significant reason for the spread of the disease was resistance to vaccination, observed not only by among many healthy or sick individuals but also among physicians who were skeptical of the vaccine and often even actively agitated against it. In addition, no one was held legally accountable for such actions, because 44 Slovenski narod, March 4th, 1874, p. 2. 45 Trade was especially strong with Trieste, the monarchy’s main port—whence the epidemic is believed to have spread across Carniola via the Southern Railroad; Slovenski zgodovinski at- las, p. 153; Vodopivec, Črne koze, p. 92. 46 Vodopivec, Črne koze, p. 92; Studen, Huda epidemija, p. 258. 47 Slovenski narod, February 25th, 1874, p. 3. 48 Vodopivec, Črne koze, pp. 92–93. the decree, issued in 1836 for the Austrian part of the monarchy, merely recommended smallpox vac- cination. Variolization was introduced in Carni- ola as early as 1799 by the physician Vincenc Kern, and according to the data for the 1870s, between 13,000 and 14,000 Carniolans received the vaccine (in the form of vaccination and revaccination) an- nually before the epidemic. Along with physicians, they were given various bonuses and other privileges, whereas the mothers of unvaccinated children were propagandistically labelled as bad and irresponsible. To boost the preventive efforts during the epidemic itself, the city council even imposed emergency vac- cination for Ljubljana, which raises some doubt whether the press rightly stated the low vaccination rate as one of the main reasons for the epidemic of such magnitude.49 Smallpox deaths with an emphasis on the province of Carniola and the city of Ljubljana Table 1: The number of smallpox deaths per 10,000 inhabitants.50 Province 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 Carniola 1,2 4,0 21,2 51,1 4,3 Carinthia 1,9 2,7 18,3 27,8 5,6 Styria 1,7 7,0 15,1 22,4 8,0 Trieste 2,1 72,2 4,1 5,9 2,7 Gorizia-Gradisca 1,1 5,5 7,6 5,2 1,4 Istria 0,6 18,3 9,5 8,9 3,0 As the table shows, the most severely affected southern Austrian part was the city of Trieste in 1872, followed by Carniola in 1874, when the epi- demic reached its peak in the province. Table 2: The number of smallpox deaths by year in Carniola.51 Province 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 Carniola 58 187 993 2407 203 Given the data above, it is possible to confirm the statements in newspapers that the epidemic in Carniola peaked in 1874. Between 1873 and 1874, smallpox killed altogether 3,400 persons or about 0.7% of the then Carniolan population of 480,000. The table 3 clearly illustrates the widespread in- cidence of the smallpox epidemic in January, Febru- ary, and March 1874 in Ljubljana, which can also be 49 Vodopivec, Črne koze, p. 92; Železnik, Bolni otroci, pp. 441– 444; Železnik, Cepljenje proti kozam, pp. 259–274; Studen, Huda epidemija, p. 259; Kos, Življenje v Ljubljani, p. 92. 50 Vodopivec, Črne koze, p. 92. 51 Ibid. 125 LUKA HEKIČ: NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874, 119–1262022 gathered from the reporting of Slovenian and Ger- man newspapers. Table 3: The number of smallpox deaths in Ljubljana in the first half of 1874.52 Month January February March April May June Smallpox deaths 31 28 18 10 4 4 Table 4: The number of smallpox deaths in Ljubljana between December 1873 and March 1874 by age group.53 Age (years) 0–5 6–20 21–50 50 + Smallpox deaths 31 12 31 6 Most victims of the smallpox epidemic in Ljub- ljana belonged to the age groups between several weeks and five years and between twenty-one and fifty years. Not surprisingly, because the disease was posed a particular threat to infants and small chil- dren of up to five years. There were also several re- ports during the epidemic on a somewhat surprising spread of the disease among adults.54 Of all victims of the epidemic, children aged less than two years accounted for no less than one-quarter of all small- pox deaths in Ljubljana, and the average age of the deceased was around nineteen years of age.55 Table 5: Smallpox deaths in Ljubljana between December 1873 and March 1874 by sex.56 Sex Men Women Smallpox deaths 37 46 Albeit widely believed to not have discriminated among social strata, between December 1873 and March 1874 smallpox affected much more severely the poor, for example, children of ordinary work- ers, bakers, and cottagers. Most victims in the age group older than twenty years were cooks, joiners, carpenters, shoemakers, bakers, maids, farmhands, locksmiths, and housewives. Only 15% of all the de- ceased were from the middle and high social strata 52 Ibid, p. 95. 53 Slovenec, December 2nd, 1873, p. 4; December 11th, 1873, p. 4; December 13th, 1873, p. 4; December 20th, 1873, p. 4; December 30th, 1873, p. 4; January 6th, 1874, p. 4; January 8th, 1874, p. 4; January 17th, 1874, p. 4; January 22nd, 1874, p. 4; January 24th, 1874, p. 4; January 29th, 1874, p. 4; January 31st, 1874, p. 4; February 5th, 1874, p. 4; February 7th, 1874, p. 4; February 12th, 1874, p. 4; February 19th, 1874, p. 4; February 21st, 1874, p. 4; February 26th, 1874, p. 4; February 28th, 1874, p. 4; March 5th, 1874, p. 4; March 7th, 1874, p. 4; March 12th, 1874, p. 4, March 14th, 1874, p. 4; March 17th, 1874, p. 4, March 26th, 1874, p. 4; March 31st, 1874, p. 4. 54 Železnik, Bolni otroci, p. 440. 55 See note 53. 56 See note 53. (teachers, accountants, judges, and so on).57 The rea- sons for this could be, among others, that members of lower and less educated strata were more reluctant to receive the vaccine, which then reflected in higher morbidity and mortality rates. At the same time, low mortality rates in higher strata can also be attributed to better hygiene, higher living standard, and bet- ter healthcare more readily available to them in the event of infection, compared to lower strata.58 To conclude The analysis of Slovenian and German newspa- pers in Ljubljana shows no noticeable deviation from the average number of smallpox infections before the autumn of 1873. Until November 1873, spotlight was on political developments, such as the drafting of the new imperial council election act from April 1873 or the election to the Carniolan provincial assembly, which was held in mid-November that same year. A slight increase in the number of infections can be observed in early autumn through newspaper reports on several unrelated cases across Carniola without mentioning any kind of epidemic. This changed in December, when the number of smallpox infections sharply increased. Only then did Slovenian and Ger- man press begin to write about an epidemic and call for maximum participation in vaccination as a cru- cial step toward ending the epidemic. The provincial government joined efforts with the local authorities in adopting a series of measures, such as school clo- sures, organizing a sanitary commission, disinfecting the clothes of the infected, and opening a provisional hospital in Trnovo. Despite all measures, however, the press frequently urged the authorities to impose additional restrictions. At the end of January 1874, newspapers reported that the epidemic began to lose its breath, but these statements turned out to be false as hospitals began to fill up again with smallpox pa- tients. At this point it seems that reporting rapidly switched from one extreme (demanding further ac- tion) to another (overly optimistic forecasts of the end of the epidemic). Contrary to the assessments provided by newspapers, the epidemic then started to abate in March, followed by the relaxation of some measures and the closure of the provisional hospital in Trnovo. Overall, reporting on smallpox put the main spotlight on Ljubljana and, somewhat surpris- ingly, the news of the epidemic was always featured on the penultimate page,59 most probably so as not to cause excessive or unnecessary panic among the population. 57 See note 53. 58 Železnik, Bolni otroci, pp. 442–447. 59 At the time, Slovenski narod, Slovenec, and Laibacher Zeitung most often only comprised four pages. 126 LUKA HEKIČ: NEWSPAPER REPORTING ON THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC IN CARNIOLA IN 1873–1874, 119–126 2022 REFERENCES NEWSPAPERS Laibacher Zeitung, 1873–1874. Slovenec, 1873–1874. Slovenski narod, 1873–1874. LITERATURE Cvirn, Janez: Dunajski državni zbor in Slovenci (1848–1918). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Fi- lozofske fakultete, 2015. Grignolio, Andrea: Kdo se boji cepiv? Ljubljana: Založba/*cf, 2018. Kos, Marjana: Epidemije črnih koz v Ljubljani v drugi polovici 18. stoletja. Arhivi 43, 2020, št. 2, str. 287–305. Kos, Marjana: Življenje v Ljubljani ob koncu 18. in na začetku 19. stoletja (magistrsko delo). Ljubljana, 2007. Lipič, Fran Viljem: Bolezni Ljubljančanov. Ljubljana: ZRC, 2007. Slovenski zgodovinski atlas (ur. Drago Bajt in Marko Vidic). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2011. Studen, Andrej: Huda epidemija črnih koz. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja 1861–1883 (ur. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2003, str. 258–259. Vodopivec, Peter: Črne koze na Kranjskem in v Ljubljani v letih 1873/74. Kronika 20, 1972, št. 2, str. 92–96. Železnik, Urška: Bolni otroci in starševske skrbi: od- nos do otroškega zdravja na primeru preprečeva- nja koz v 19. stol. Zgodovina otroštva = History of childhood (ur. Aida Škoro Babić et al.). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, 2012, str. 438–449. Železnik, Urška: Cepljenje proti kozam v koprskem okraju v 30. letih 19. stoletja. Acta medico-historica Adriatica, 2014, št. 2, str. 259–274. WEBSITES Encyclopaedia Britannica Smallpox https://www.britannica.com/science/smallpox World Health Organization Smallpox https://www.who.int/csr/disease/smallpox/en/ Zgodovina.si Epidemija črnih koz v Jugoslaviji http://zgodovina.si/epidemija-crnih-koz-v-ju- goslaviji/ P O V Z E T E K Poročanje časopisja o epidemiji črnih koz na Kranjskem v letih 1873–1874 Po francosko-pruski vojni (1870–71) se je v Evropi ponovno pričela širiti epidemija črnih koz. Habsburško monarhijo je epidemični val dosegel leta 1872 in se po njenem ozemlju postopoma širil naslednji dve leti. Med najbolj prizadetimi deželami monarhije so bile Spodnja Avstrija, Šlezija in Salz- burg, medtem ko sta bila med najbolj prizadetima južnima območjema monarhije mesto Trst in de- žela Kranjska. V slovenskem in nemškem časopisju pred jesenjo 1873 na Kranjskem ni mogoče zaznati večjega odstopanja od povprečnega števila primerov črnih koz. Nekoliko povečano število obolelih zasle- dimo šele novembra 1873, medtem ko je epidemija vrh doživela med decembrom 1873 in marcem 1874. Bolezen se je po poročanju časopisja najbolj razmah- nila predvsem v Ljubljani, Kranju ter Novem mestu. Za zajezitev epidemije v deželi so posamezne me- stne oblasti skupaj z deželno vlado sprejele številne ukrepe, med drugim ustanovitev sanitetne komisije, obvezno dezinfekcijo prostorov ter osebnih stvari obolelih, zaprtje šol in izredno cepljenje. Kljub temu moramo poudariti, da je časopisje deželne oblasti pogosto pozivalo, naj za zajezitev epidemije uvedejo dodatne omejitve, prebivalce pa je naprošalo, naj se udeležijo cepljenja. Ukrepi med Kranjci velikokrat niso bili upoštevani, saj so ljudje odhajali v skupne prostore (gostilne, cerkve, sodišča …), se zadrževali pri umrlih za črnimi kozami in vzdrževali nizek hi- gienski standard. Časopisi so že konec januarja oce- nili, da epidemija izgublja sapo, vendar se je ta pričela mimo njihovih napovedi umirjati šele marca, skladno s tem pa so deželne oblasti sprostile nekatere ukrepe. V letih 1873 in 1874 je na Kranjskem za črnimi ko- zami skupaj umrlo 3.400 oseb, kar predstavlja okoli 0,7 % takratnega prebivalstva dežele. Največji delež umrlih v Ljubljani med decembrom 1873 in marcem 1874 predstavljajo osebe iz starostne skupine od ne- kaj tednov do pet let in osebe iz starostne skupine od 21 do 50 let. Med žrtvami črnih koz največkrat naj- demo pripadnike nižjih slojev, kot so otroci navadnih delavcev, pekov in kajžarjev, medtem ko so žrtve po 20. letu starosti prav tako opravljale poklice, značilne za najnižje sloje, to so bili hlapci, dekle, kuharice, go- spodinje, čevljarji in tesarji. Razloge za takšno social- no strukturo umrlih lahko najdemo v večjem odporu proti cepljenju med nižjimi sloji ter v večji higieni, kvalitetnejših bivalnih razmerah in boljši oskrbi za obolele pri višjih slojih prebivalstva. 127 2022 SPECIAL ISSUE UDK 398(=163.6):615.89 616.98:579.842 616-036.21 Monika Kropej Telban PhD, Research Advisor, Institute of Slovenian Ethnology, Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, Email: Monika.Kropej@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6459-3683 Folktales about the Plague and Healing Practices against It in Narrative Folklore ABSTRACT The contribution discusses the narrative folklore about the plague, most notably how it spread, how people tried to protect themselves against the disease and how they treated it in Slovenian territory and, to some extent, within the wider European framework. The first part presents the analysis of folktales in which the Plague, personified as a demonic figure, roams from place to place, from one land to another. The second part focuses on steps taken to prevent the disease from spreading and means of protection against it, as well as healing, charms, incantations, and other vernacular practices during the epidemic. KEY WORDS plague, pandemics, folk narrative, Slovenia, folk medicine IZVLEČEK PRIPOVEDI O KUGI IN ZDRAVILNE PRAKSE PROTI TEJ BOLEZNI V LJUDSKEM IZROČILU Prispevek obravnava pripovedno izročilo o kugi, predvsem tisti del, ki govori o njenem širjenju in načinih obram- be in zdravljenja pred to boleznijo v slovenskem prostoru in delno v širšem evropskem okviru. V prvem delu so ana- lizirane pripovedi v katerih se Kuga kot poosebljeni demonski lik bolezni širi iz kraja v kraj in iz dežele v deželo, v drugem delu članka pa je obravnavan predvsem načini preprečevanja širjenja in zaščite pred to boleznijo ter zdrav- ljenje, zarotitve, zagovarjanje ter druge vernakularne prakse ljudi v času epidemije. KLJUČNE BESEDE kuga, pandemije, slovstvena folklora, Slovenija, ljudska medicina 128 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–140 2022 Folktales about the plague, the contagious dis- ease, which had stricken humanity several times throughout history, have been preserved in oral tra- dition as depictions of conditions imposed by the plague epidemic as well as protection against the disease and its treatment or as folktales about the plague—the demonic creature that killed people and cattle. Especially in Europe, people described it as a supernatural being very akin to their conceptions of death, nightmare, hunger, and various other diseases. Its personifications featured in the demonologies of many cultures and represented one of the greatest horrors whenever and wherever it raged. The set of distinctive motifs used in plague folk- tales is very comprehensive; in his catalogue “The Migratory Legends” (1958), the Norwegian folklor- ist Reidar Christiansen classified them under the chapter Legends concerning the Great Plague, referring to the following narrative types: 7080. The Plague, in the shape of an old hag, passing from district to district with a rake or, and, a broom. 7085. The hag is ferried across a river or lake by some one who in the end recognizes her, and asks to be spared. The hag consulting her book refuses, but grants him an easy death. 7090. The survivors, a boy and a girl, and their fate. 7095. The rediscovery many years after of desert- ed houses or a church.1 However, as materials preserved in the archives of research institutions and in printed sources suggest, folktales about the plague were thematically much more diverse. The plague and hunger Ivan Grafenauer was one of the few Slovenian folklorists who wrote about the plague accompa- nied by hunger in the form of the fabled insatiable creature Netek.2 The plague was commonly associ- ated with hunger, personified in Slovenian folklore as the Netek. However much he ate, he was never satisfied, and he always craved for more. Hence the name “ne tek,” which literally translates to English “no appetite,” although it is more correctly rendered as “never full.”3 1 Christiansen, The Migratory Legends, pp. 214–215. 2 Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”. 3 Ivan Grafenauer also stated the names of plants and animals with the common root: netečje = berries that do not make one full, mostly cranberries; netečnik = bobnarica or mire drum (Ardea stellaria), a type of bird that was given this common name for the male’s distinctive call. (Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, pp. 164–165). In the oldest preserved Slovenian folktale O Neteku, published in 1847 by Josip Drobnič, the as- sociation between the Netek and the plague is not made explicit. The author merely states that in any house that wants to drive the Netek away without of- fering him food and drink, he will eat and drink all the human and animal supplies and make sure that the local fields, vineyards, and orchards will bear no fruit for three years. But whoever receives him with kindness, there he will show his gratitude.4 Similarly, no such association between the Netek and the plague was made by the Slovenian novel- ist Janez Trdina, who wrote about the creature in 1881.5 Grafenauer derived the connection between the Plague and the Glutton (equivalent to the Netek in Slovenian folklore) primarily by drawing on tradi- tions about a voracious little man, the Glutton, that have been preserved in some Alpine areas, especially in the Central European territory, among the Ro- mansh people in Switzerland, and in Vorarlberg in the Austrian Alps: The Glutton / “Der Fresser” In the early seventeenth century, the plague swept through the Bregenz Forest in the drainage basin of the Bregenz River in the northern part of Vorarl- berg. One morning, a foreigner walked into the for- mer “Sun’s” inn. He ordered lunch for twenty people and then set out toward Ellenborgen. He returned at noon, alone, and he ate all the food down to the last crumb by himself. The innkeeper found this atro- cious, and she turned to the parish priest for advice. He told her to charge nothing for the lunch. When the foreigner asked how much he owed her, she said that everything had already been paid for. The foreigner thanked her and said that the plague would no longer spread. No one ever saw him again.6 Oral traditions of other regions also talked about war and hunger that followed on the heels of the plague. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the latter was said to be followed by a year of hunger.7 Bracing for the plague, believed to roam around in the shape of a woman, Rumanian farmers would leave plenty of food on the side of the road for all travelers to fend off the arrival of the disease.8 Furthermore, many historical sources maintain that the plague usually brought general shortages and the economic turmoil in its wake.9 4 Drobnič, Slovenska pripovedka; Grafenauer, Neték in “Po- nočna potnica”, p. 171. 5 Trdina, Verske bajke, p. 537. 6 Beitl, Im Sagenwald, p. 65, no. 82; Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, pp. 159–160. 7 Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, p. 165. 8 Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, pp. 188, 190. 9 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, p. 81; Golec, Kužne epidemije, p. 59. 129 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–1402022 The plague personified as a woman, a man, a boy, a girl, or a plague pair According to popular belief, the plague was the evil spirit that killed people and cattle. Especially in Europe, people described it as a supernatural or fa- bled creature very akin to their conceptions of death, nightmare, hunger, and various other diseases. Peo- ple sometimes imagined that the plague was caused by witches, sorcerers, or by Satan.10 Where the word “death” is of masculine gender, the plague was often presented as a man, and where it is assigned female gender, the plague, too, was analogously featured as a woman. In line with these conceptions, the plague— often dubbed the Black Death in folklore—took on a personification of its own. The Rhaeto-Romance people in Switzerland conceived of the plague as an old woman. Arnold Bühli published a tale about the plague that in 1566 made its way to Ladir via Basel and Bern, personified as an old woman dressed in black: She knocked on the window of a house at the top of the village and asked if she could spend the night there. No, she was told, there was no room in the house, but she could sleep in the barn if she wanted. Then they saw the old woman wrapped in black enter the barn. After that, no one saw her again. The next day, the plague broke out in the village.11 In Croatia, stories circulated about the plague that lived in the woods near Pavlovac, a village in the county of Bjelovar. One evening, a farmer crossed these woods with his wagon. The plague sat by the fire, roasting horse meat and human flesh. She offered the farmer human flesh, and he ate it. When he returned to Pavlovac, the plague broke out, killing all inhabitants.12 In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the plague was de- picted as a woman holding a broom in one hand and a lantern in the other to find and ‘sweep away’ as many people as possible.13 To save themselves from the plague, people ran to the mountains or other places.14 In Slovenian folklore, an old saying has it that: “[i]f the plague appears, buy yourself a pair of sturdy shoes and run until the soles fall apart.”15 Germanic peoples depicted the plague in the form of a man or a boy. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm published, among others, the following folktale about the plague personified as a tall man: 10 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 72–73. 11 Bühli, Sagen aus Graubünden, 2, p. 210; from: Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, p. 186. 12 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, p. 36. 13 Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, p. 166. 14 Ibid., p. 165. 15 Slekovec, Kuga na slovenskem štajerskem, p. 142. The Tall Man in the Murder Lane in Hof In 1519, just before the plague killed so many people in Hof a large, tall black man was seen in Murder Lane. His wide-spread legs reached both sides of the street, and his head rose far above the housetops. My great-grandmother, Walburg Widmann, herself, saw how he walked along this street one evening with one foot at the tavern’s entrance and the other foot across the street in front of the large house there. She was so frightened that she did not know which way to go. In God’s name and making the sign of the cross, she advanced in the middle of the street and passed between his legs. Had she not dared to do this the ghost would have followed her. She had barely es- caped when the ghost clapped his legs together so hard that all the houses in Murder Lane nearly collapsed. Soon afterward the plague befell the city, and it was first felt in Murder Lane.16 Similarly widespread in Central and Northern Europe, and even in Iceland17 were the notions of a plague pair, a man and a woman wandering from place to place together, bringing the plague. Accord- ing to the German folktale from Schweinfurt on the river Main, male death cut grass and his wife, female Death (the Plague) raked behind him, and only what slipped through the tines remained alive.18 In Bavar- ia and Germany, too, the notions are documented of male Death and female Death wreaking havoc across the land in the form of the Plague. One such folktale has been preserved in Austrian Carinthia: Once male Death said to female Death: “I take the scythe, you take the rake; I’ll cut, you’ll rake af- ter me.” So, male Death and female Death climbed Mount Malta (Maltaberg). When they reached the last farmer, male Death started to cut grass from the top of Mount Malta to the bottom, and she raked the cut patches behind him and piled them into a heap. Meanwhile, the plague raged across the mountain, leaving no man alive; male Death cut them all down.19 Folktales in Vorarlberg narrated about the plague coming to Feldkirchen and killing almost to the last villager. Thenceforth, when someone sneezed, people would say, “God help you!” Die Pest in Feldkirchen / The plague in Feldkirchen Two monsters from Lichtenstein came to the river Ill, one carrying a broom and the other a shovel. By the river, one said to the other: “You go here and dig through here and I’ll go there and sweep through 16 Grimm, Deutsche Sagen, no. 167, p. 243: “Der lange Mann in der Mordgasse zu Hof.” 17 Gunnell, Mists, Magicians, pp. 49–50. 18 Bronner, Von deutscher Sitt, p. 262; from: Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, p. 183. 19 Graber, Sagen aus Kärnten, no. 258; from: Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, p. 184. 130 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–140 2022 there!” So, they divided the valleys between them- selves, causing an untold death toll. If the monster so much as looked at someone, that person staggered and blackened, and whoever sneezed came down with fever and perished that same day. The disease announced its presence through sneezing, and people would say: “God help you!” or “God help us all!”20 Sneezing was considered one of the symptoms of the plague, and this expression became widely used throughout Europe. According to Jacqueline Simpson, in the plague-ravaged seventeenth-century England, too, people started to say, “Bless you!” or “God help you!” when they heard someone sneeze, and this custom has been preserved to the present day.21 Swedish folktales narrate about the plague that came from the south, looking like a beautiful little boy rasping with an iron grater, leaving one or two household members alive; after him came the plague damsel (“pestflicka”), who swept her broom in front of the gate, causing everyone in the village to die.22 In the Estonian folklore, the plague came in the form of a male figure, depicted as a boy or a black man: /…/ Near Suure-Jaani the farmer of the Tooba farmstead was in the forest and saw the plague spirit dancing and singing under the trees: “Patt-patt-patt to Paelamaa [farmstead], kõps-kõps-kõps to Kõnnu [farmstead], topp-topp-topp to Tooba [farmstead]!” The farmer understood that it was the plague and said: “Let’s see!” He went home, took a rowan cudgel, carved three five-pointed stars on it and started wait- ing. In the night someone came and asked to be let in. The farmer opened the door and saw a black man. The farmer started beating the man with his cudgel until the plague started begging that the farmer let him go. The farmer said: “When you promise that you won’t go anywhere anymore to kill, I will stop.” The plague promised and the man stopped beating.23 As seen above, stories about the plague also frequently named places that were visited by the Plague. According to the Estonian folklorist Reet Hiiemäe, within the framework of the legends about dangerous places—for instance of the places where the spread of plague is mentioned in the legends— a mental map can be established, which covers the emergence of the threat in the community as well as their escape from it.24 In a similar vein, Timothy Tangherlini observes based on Scandinavian plague 20 Beitl, Im Sagenwald, p. 65 no. 82; from: Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, p. 184. 21 Simpson and Roud, A Dictionary of English Folklore, p. 280. 22 Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, p. 994; from: Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, p. 187. 23 Hiiemäe, Esti kratkupärimus, p. 124; Hiiemäe, Narrative Maps, p. 180. 24 Hiiemäe Narrative Maps, pp. 179–181. narratives that in folk belief, quite logically, people tried to narratively map the route of the plague spirit as the personification of the disease.25 People in Iceland and also in some other Euro- pean countries narrated that the Plague appears as a fog, mist or cloud which lay across the lowlands, kill- ing people and livestock, and that people saved their lives by going to the mountains.26 The plague will let itself be carried or ferried, because it cannot cross water by itself Folktales about the plague traveling a predesig- nated route to selected destinations and letting itself be ferried across a river or a sea to an island are men- tioned by both Timothy Tangherlini in Scandinavia (1988) and Reet Hiiemäe in Estonia (2016), and they are also documented in the French-Breton, Prussian, and Polish folklores. The Southern Slavs, too, nar- rated that the plague was unable to swim across a river or a sea and therefore found itself a means of transport. Many folktales were published by Matija Valjavec27 and Friedrich Krauß,28 for example: The plague came to a piece of water. Just then, the river Sava spilled over, and she could not wade, so she asked a man riding in a boat to take her across, oblivious of a dog under his seat. He took her into his boat and started rowing. Once they reached the mid- dle of the water, the dog woke up, saw the plague, and charged at her. The plague asked the man to set her free, but to no avail, as the dog was already tearing at her and grabbing her until she fell into the water. Thus, she barely reached the far bank of the river and threatened to avenge all her wounds until all dogs died. Well, thank God, that did not happen, and there are more dogs every day.29 Many folktales describing how the plague let it- self be carried or transported from one place to an- other mention its fear of dogs30 and cats, and that it was repelled by the rooster’s crow. Juniper sprigs were also used to keep the plague away: The plague asked a ferryman who transported people from the Littoral to a nearby island to take her there across the channel. She would do him no harm, but if he did not trust her, he could place thorns and juni- per sprigs in the middle of the boat, between himself 25 Tangherlini, Ships, Fogs and Traveling Pairs. 26 Gunnell, Mists, Magicians, p. 49; Travner, Kuga na Sloven- skem, p. 76. 27 Valjavec, Narodna pripovjedke, p. 243. 28 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, p. 14, Krauß, Volksglaube, pp. 64, 67. 29 Valjavec, Narodne pripovjedke, p. 243; Krauß, Volksglaube, p. 64; from: Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, p. 190. 30 The plague also avoided dogs according to the Bosnian and Herzegovinian folklore; cf.: Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, p. 164. 131 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–1402022 and the Plague. The ferryman did so and was left un- harmed, while the Plague sowed death all around.31 Such folktales also inspired the Slovenian poet Anton Aškerc and his ballad “Ponočna potnica” (Midnight Passenger).32 Prophylactic actions and remedies The plague and agrarian rituals The memory of ancient agrarian rituals in the Southern Slavic region has been preserved by the folktale about the Plague and Death, who were believed to be sis- ters from Sarajevo. One killed people and the other took them to the otherworld. Once, they promised a man to do him no harm if he would carry them to another place on his back and protect them from be- ing ravaged by dogs. On their way, the farmer asked them how people could be saved from the plague. They advised to yoke a dozen naked young men and a dozen naked young women to plows and make them plow the same furrow around the village seven times. When the man left them, many villagers died that day. Then, heeding his advice, they sent two dozen young men and women to plow a furrow around the village and saved themselves from the plague.33 Similar folktales and rituals of “plowing out the disease” were known in other parts of Central and Southern Europe, as confirmed by the memory of a custom that was preserved in Loška Dolina in Slove- nia until the end of the nineteenth century. Women plowed out the plague by dragging the plows around the village, some having them tied to their waists and others holding them by the handle. In this way, they plowed the same furrow around the village three times.34 Aiša Softić discovered similar methods of pro- tection against the disease in Bosnian and Herzego- vinian manuscripts. The following folklore has been preserved around Bosanska Gradiška: People in the village found twin sisters and two black oxen born of the same cow. A new plow had to be built overnight and then the sisters, completely na- ked, plowed a furrow around the entire village with the oxen. Thus, they fended off the plague.35 In such narrative traditions, Softić highlights the belief that it was important to draw the magic circle around a person, a group of people or, as in this case, 31 Krauß, Volksglaube, p. 67; Grafenauer, Neték in “Ponočna potnica”, pp. 190–191, note 24. 32 Aškerc, Ponočna potnica, p. 385. 33 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, pp. 25–30. 34 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, pp. 130, 392. 35 Softić, Zapisi usmenih predaja, p. 163. around the entire village for protection against evil forces. However, this custom also attributed a special magic power to dragging a plow around the village as a magic act, where it was also important who per- formed the plowing and how. Incantations and apotropaic acts One of the rare reports on how people warded off the plague and cured it was provided by the English writer Daniel Defoe, who preserved a fictionalized account of life in London in 1665 in his book A Jour- nal of the Plague Year (1722). He described various herbal remedies, preventive charms, as well as omens and portents of the plague. Herbs that were believed to prevent the spread of the plague were garlic and rue (Ruta graveolens), as well as tobacco and vinegar. In his novel, he also wrote about charm papers, tied up on the person with many knots, and certain words or figures written on them, among them the word Abracadabra formed in a triangle.36 Similar approaches were documented elsewhere in Europe. In Slovenian territory, reports on incanta- tions against the plague have been preserved from as early as the sixteenth century—specifically, one from 1583, in which Bishop Paolo Bisanti notified the pa- triarch of Aquileia that Slovenians in Gorizia region practiced incantations against the plague.37 An incantation or a spell of some sort against all contagious diseases from 1851, preserved in the Book of Incantations by Jakob Rant from Dolenčice in Poljanska Dolina reads as follows: pokličem jest Jaka vimen Svetga Benedikta in vi- men Tega Nar Svetišga Čez nebeške Moči nar Nar visokišiga Čez Svet zijan z zinaji Adonoji Attanatos Deous Bog tanar Močnejši U Presveti Trojici zpik = tro = ik = volf toje Aleluja Aleluja Aleluja trikrat križ naredit in trikrat gor dihnit še 4 nebeška znamenja se morja dat (. S ổ . . S S ổ S S o. L. ♀) vžit Nato se moli 7 očenašov h Čajsti Presvetej Tro- jici in teh Patronov. [I call Jacob in the name of Saint Benedict and in the name of the holiest of Saints in the Heavens and on Earth, looked on with zinaji (?) of Ado- nis (?) Attanatos Deous God the mightiest of the Holy Trinity zpik = tro = ik = volf This is Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Draw three crosses and take three breaths in the air, and then make four heavenly signs using (?) (. S ổ . . S S ổ S S o. L. ♀). Then pray 7 Our Fa- 36 Simpson and Roud, A Dictionary of English Folklore, p. 280. 37 Gruden, Zgodovina slovenskega naroda, p. 1061; from: Möd- erndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 33. 132 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–140 2022 St. Roch Church in Dravlje and a plague column on the Celovška Road. Plague column from 1743 in Maribor’s Main Square, by Jožef Straub. Saint Mary is surrounded by six saints–intercessors against the plague. The monument was erected as a token of gratitude for putting an end to the plague (1681), which killed one-third of the population in the seventeenth century. 133 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–1402022 thers in honor of the Holy Trinity and the Patron Saints.].38 People also used defensive magic symbols or let- ters and spells against the plague, very few of which have been preserved.39 The oldest known Slovenian zapretek or charm against the plague is contained in the Carinthian Duhovna brauna (Spiritual Defense) from 1740: Gospod Franzhiskus Salorius shkof v Salmonii je ana prizha de v leti 1547 se je sgodivo, da so utrenti per Conziliumu al rati ukupe bli sbrani shkofi in drugi kuoshterski tavishi, k so Rat dershali, da je she zhries 20 shkofou inu tok vishah na kugi umerlo, tedei je ta patriarh od Austicie, usam te prizhiozhe buhstabe ratou, kteri so od s. Zahariusa shkofa, v Jerusalem resvoshani, inu sa kuo gorei sehranjeni bli, inu poter- deni, to majo kako ano shishno pomuzh, kader je kuga de je imamo udrukano per sabe nositi. K so tu sturili ni obeden vezh na kugi umerou inu kader se bushtabi na ane duri sa shribajo, so usi pred kugo obuarani, kiri pod isto streho bonajo. Buhstabi sa kugo so leti: + ZDIA + BIZ + SAB + ZHGP + BFRS. [Sir Franciscus Salorius bore witness to bishops and other men of the cloth having gathered to hold a council in 1547. Because twenty bishops and several senior clerics had already died of the plague, the Patriarch of Antioch (?) recommended using all letters (buhštabi) that Bishop Zacharias from Jerusalem had approved to protect homes from the plague. They were to be printed and worn on the body. People heeded the advice, and no one died of the plague again; and when they wrote them on their front doors, no one ever died of the plague from that house again. These are the letters against the plague: + ZDIA + BIZ + SAB + ZHGP + BFRS.].40 People would also wear little pouches around their necks, with incantations, charms, and magic symbols sown in to protect them from the plague. Saints—protectors against the plague To triumph over the plague, people also erected plague columns, churches and chapels dedicated to patron saints against the plague, especially St. Roch, St. Sebastian, St. Rosalie, and St. Barbara, as well as St. Oswald in Carinthia.41 38 The Book of Incantations by Jakob Rant, locally known as Kočar from Dolenčice no. 9 in Poljanska Dolina. The manu- script from 1851 was kept by Janez Dolenc; from: Mödern- dorfer, Ljudska medicina, pp. 23–24. 39 Some examples are in: Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 79– 80. 40 Dolenc, Zagovori, p. 45. 41 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 33. As evident from the folklore that has been pre- served in the village of Povir in the municipality of Sežana, St. Fabian was another powerful intercessor against the plague: The plague in the shape of a black girl stood on top of a hill, calling: “Fabian, Sebastian, when you summon your strength, you keep me away from Povir!” At the Church of St. James, people especially wor- shipped St. Sebastian and St. Fabian, who were also invoked against the plague.42 In 1644, when the plague raged in Zapuže and Dravlje near Ljubljana, the inhabitants of the Dravlje neighborhood swore to build a church and honor it with a ceremonial procession every year on the Feast of St. Roch (August 16th), which usually ended with a fête.43 In his sermon dedicated to St. Roch from the col- lection of sermons “Sacrum promptuarium” (1691), the Baroque preacher and author Janez Svetokriški wrote about the devastating plague in Slovenian ter- ritory and about processions that people attended on that day for St. Roch to protect them against this dreadful disease.44 Closures and quarantines According to folklore, a cross alone, erected on the road or in front of a tunnel leading to another re- gion, could prevent the plague from spreading. Thus narrates the Carinthian tradition: The road from Mežica to Črna ran through a tunnel on which a cross was mounted some time before the plague struck. There being no other path connecting the town with Mežica, the cross prevented the plague from advancing to Črna.45 Violations of the ban on traveling to other places where the plague had not yet erupted could some- times be very serious, and they could also result in death: Hundreds of years ago, the plague raged in Mežica. For this horrid disease not to spread elsewhere, they posted military guards at Reht to prevent any vil- lager from leaving. At the Kajžar Cross on the right bank of the river Meža, they dug a deep pit and threatened to bury alive whoever came to that pit and wanted to proceed toward the village. Kajžar had a beautiful daughter. This beauty reached the pit first on her way to run errands in Mežica. The soldiers grabbed her and threw her in the pit. Deaf to her earnest implorations and heart-wrenching cries, the cruel soldiers buried her alive. Thenceforth, 42 Zgodnja Danica 33, September 10th, 1880, p. 294; from Kro- pej, Od ajda, p. 300. 43 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, p. 82. 44 Svetokriški, Sacrum promptuarium, pp. 53–54. 45 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, p. 62. 134 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–140 2022 the plague was never seen again. According to the soldiers’ and popular belief, it had transformed into Kajžar’s beautiful daughter and that was the only way to do away with it forever.46 A tale, preserved in Treibach in Austrian Carin- thia, narrates about the misfortunate fate of a vic- tim—a girl that was thrown into a pit and buried alive to stop the plague from spreading. The memory of the pestilence that raged at that time is kept alive by a plaque, mounted near the tower in the cemetery adjacent to the Church of St. Kosmas and St. Da- mian, bearing the inscription: “Plague 1715.” When the plague ravaged the land in 1715, the vil- lagers decided to dig a ditch in front of the church during Mass, where they would bury alive the first person that would come out from the church before the end of Mass. Such misfortune befell a little girl who rushed home early to tend to her ill mother. She was buried alive, and the plague never entered the village again.47 Town folk sought to fend off the plague by post- ing guards outside the town walls and preventing en- trance to foreigners and beggars. The so-called plague guards prohibited passage to people and goods with- out health certificates or “fede.” Newcomers from in- fected areas were sent into mandatory quarantine at the lazaretto station.48 As a rule, any outbreak of no matter how locally limited epidemic prompted the closure of provincial borders and a severe restriction or suspension of traffic, which had an adverse impact on the provincial economy.49 Sources also report that in 1598, when the plague swept through Ljubljana, a wooden fence was raised around the village of Krakovo, completely cutting it off from the world, and the same steps were taken in other plague-ridden settlements. Infected houses were marked with a huge plague cross painted on the front door.50 Protection with herbal remedies and apotropaic acts On the onset of an infectious disease, people also tried to protect themselves against it by smoking the house and barns with juniper (Juniperus communis) and charcoal, mixed with Alpine valerian (Valeriana celtica), myrrh (Commiphore), and incense.51 The in- habitants of Styria also believed that they could ward off the plague by sharpening their scythes.52 46 Ibid., p. 61. 47 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 33. 48 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, p. 84. 49 Golec, Kužne epidemije, p. 26. 50 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, p. 82. 51 Košir, Ljudska medicina, p. 30; from Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 23. 52 Pajek, Črtice, p. 84. To keep the plague away, the inhabitants of Tre- bija in Poljanska Dolina in Upper Carniola buried the plague victim’s clothes in the ground for three days, after which they hung them for three days on the roof under moonlight, and then finally left them exposed to sunlight for another three days.53 According to the “Večna Pratika” almanac, diet helped keep the plague at bay by avoiding cooked herbs, such as spinach, sorrel, chicory, garlic, anis, parsley, and sage. It recommended to abstain from salted fish, mushrooms, all kinds of meat, bacon, old rotten cheese, melons, and onions, as well as from beverages, such as apple and pear cider, hard wine,54 distilled wine,55 and boiled water.56 It was beneficial to drink celandine (Chelidonium maius) boiled in wine, juice from the leaves and roots of wall german- der (Teucrium chamaedrys), or to mix wine with the dried powder of its leaves and roots. Wealthier fami- lies used lemon (Citrus limonum) and orange (Citrus aurantium) peels soaked in wine. Protection against the plague was also provided by common rue (Ruta graveolens) and acorn as well as by ingesting the root of wild angelica (Angelica sil- vestris) or “the root of the Holy Ghost” after fasting. Another herbal remedy held in esteem was burnet- saxifrage, also called solidstem burnet or lesser bur- net (Pimpinella saxifraga), a grassland plant resem- bling caraway with spicy roots tasting like pepper. Its roots and leaves were used to make tea. In Rosental (Slo.: Rož) in Austrian Carinthia, burnet-saxifrage also had a reputation as a remedy for cholera, which was considered as serious a threat as the plague. The following story has been preserved: In Rosental, too, a terrible cholera once broke out, killing people like flies. Every house counted dead bodies, and some went completely extinct. Markele’s cottage, too, had already buried its master, his wife, and their children, leaving only the old grandfather sitting sadly on the bench in front of the house. While he contemplated the fate of his children, a bird flew by, repeating: “Burnet, burnet, burnet!” The man did not know what to make of it. The bird flew away and soon returned and dropped from its beak an herb that looked like caraway. The old man picked up the herb and went to forage it. He brewed its roots into a tea and drank it. The Black Death did not catch him or anyone else who drank such tea or rinsed their mouths with its decoction. The herb was named burnet (Pimpinella saxifraga)! Thenceforth, cholera has no longer wreaked such havoc among those that are familiar with this remedy.57 53 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 31. 54 Wine containing a high concentration of acid, tannins, and usually also alcohol. 55 Cognac or brandy. 56 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 31. 57 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, p. 62–63. 135 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–1402022 People would also carry burnet in their pockets, apart from garlic and juniper, which were ascribed similar apotropaic effects. In Carinthia, it was cus- tomary to soak burnet in liquor and always have a bottle of this alcoholic concoction on hand. Styrians, however, would carry on them the seeds of pimper- nel or chicken blindness (Anagallis phoenicia) to drive away evil spirits and wear the cross of St. Benedict around their necks.58 During the plague, they pro- tected their nostrils, eyes, ears, temples, and veins with wine vinegar, in which they soaked rue and el- derberries.59 The healing benefits of sunlight and honey are presented in a folktale from Mežica, Carinthia: The plague killed all the inhabitants of Mežica, ex- cept a man on the Pustotnik farm. He defended him- self against the plague by eating nothing but honey and by soaking in the sun every day, lying face down at the foot of the hill.60 Fire was deemed a natural disinfectant; in some plague-afflicted areas, every newcomer had to pass by the fire before they were permitted to meet the local inhabitants. In Lower Carniola, every participant in the Midsummer Day celebration would jump over the bonfire three times to protect themselves from the plague. In White Carniola, farmers would, still in more recent times, light bonfires in their courtyards during the plague and drive their cattle through the embers.61 In Styria, a time-honored tradition was preserved until the end of the nineteenth century to start the Easter morning by lighting bonfires or the so-called vuzenice, in firm belief that as far as their smoke reached, there the plague would never come, and buckwheat would never be nipped by frost.62 Water was attributed a similar defensive power against the plague. The inhabitants of Motnik in Upper Carniola believed that the plague would not come to them if they ran to the running water and washed themselves in it on Holy Saturday before “untying the church bells.”63 Treatment The plague was primarily treated with medicinal plants, vinegar, wine, honey, tobacco, and many other natural remedies. In the countryside, people most of- ten turned for help to village healers, and witch doc- tors, whereas physicians, if at all accessible, primarily tended to patients in towns and mansions. During 58 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 32. 59 Ibid., p. 30. 60 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, p. 62. 61 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 31. 62 Pajek, Črtice, p. 84. 63 Letopis Matice Slovenske, 1887, pp. 88–167; from Möderndor- fer, Ljudska medicina, p. 32. the plague, they would put on special protective out- fits not to get infected by the disease themselves. They wore leather cloak and covered their faces with beaked masks and spectacles. The long beaks were filled with a mixture of aromatic herbs that were be- lieved to protect against infection.64 Although already running rampant in Ljubljana in 1198 and 1230, the Black Death caused the great- est devastation between 1347 and 1350. It revisit- ed Ljubljana in 1568 and 1569, and after it broke out again in 1586, a small lazaretto was set up near the walls of the Šentpeter cemetery on the bank of the river Ljubljanica. Lazaretto stations were sub- sequently expanded, and a plague hospital was also constructed.65 People fought the plague with herbal remedies; in The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola (Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain, 1689), Valvasor already wrote about butterbur (Petasites officinalis), a plant growing near waterbodies and in the valleys around Šmarješke Toplice that purportedly cured uncurable diseases and even the plague itself. In the same volume, he also mentioned the roots of angelica (Angelica silves- tris) and stressed that he could not recommend them enough for their healing power against the plague, adding that the Carniolan soil provided herbs that beat the plague. Apart from the two stated above, these were also: Doronicum, Pimpinella saxifraga, Scorzonera, Galera, Veronica, Juniperus communis, Suc- cisa, Gentiana, Potentilla erecta, Veleriana, Chelidoni- um maius, and Imperatoria ostruthium.66 In Carinthia, Vinko Möderndorfer wrote a tale about the already mentioned Pimpinella saxifraga, which was believed to cure the plague: There was no known cure for the plague. Then birds, completely unfamiliar to the inhabitants of Mežica, flew in from somewhere, calling: “Use burnet, use burnet, use burnet!” And people, indeed, helped themselves with burnet (Pimpinella saxifraga) and recovered.67 Another plant held in esteem was starch-root (Arum maculatum). The juice extracted from its leaves and roots was added sugar. People drank it every morning and evening, in the hope that it would take away the plague, fever, and other conta- gious diseases.68 During the plague and febrile diseases, it was fur- ther recommended to drink wine mixed with juice from the leaves and roots of starch-root and a con- coction of wine boiled with burnet-saxifrage (Pimpi- 64 Golec, Kužne epidemije, p. 37. 65 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, p. 81. 66 Valvasor, Die Ehre, III, pp. 377–380; from: Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 34. 67 Möderndorfer, Koroške narodne pripovedke, p. 62; Kelemi- na, Bajke in pripovedke, p. 395, note 196/VII. 68 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 23, 34. 136 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–140 2022 nella saxifraga). Great benefits were also ascribed to powdered wall germander (Teucrium chamaedrys)69 and a decoction of sorrel and terjak (black elderberry juice mixed with sugar). Popular remedies against the plague in Mur- ska Sobota were pine (Pinus) and anise (Pimpinella anisum).70 It was advisable to drink “Ehrenpreis wa- ter” mixed with powdered heath speedwell (Veronica officinalis) every morning and evening,71 and people also cooked wine soup with added garlic. A highly esteemed remedy was the king’s egg or the golden egg, prepared with egg yolk, terjak tea, and saffron.72 In some areas, an egg white or a prune was placed on the pustule, and the inhabitants of Murska Sobota treated infected wounds with dried toads.73 Toads were considered a valuable plague cure by drawing out the poison. Some cooked them in milk or vinegar and ate them, or they were put as bandages on infect- ed wounds. For this reason, people looked for them during the days of celebrating Marian masses.74 When the plague erupted in the autumn of 1680 near Leskovec in Haloze, a story circulated about a woman who recommended an infected man to cook a toad in vinegar. Heeding her advice, the farmer ate the toad and drank the soup in which he cooked it. He sweated profusely and fully recovered the next morning. The news spread like fire across the neigh- borhood, and toads became celebrated as the most effective cure for the plague. People throughout Haloze searched for toads and cooked them, as well as carried them around alive.75 Other plague cures were deer and chamois horns, sulfur, and vitriol used as powders, drinks, dressings, and bandages.76 “Večna pratika” recommended wear- ing neck pouches with powdered spider (Araneida) or toad (Bufo vulgaris), as well as žilštajn (snake stone).77 On their pilgrimages, Carinthians bought devotional images of Mother of God and put them in patients’ food to ward off the plague.78 Believing that the demon of the person’s disease can be defeated by the positive spirit, people also practiced a magical treatment: “hammering of the plague” into a tree. They bore a hole into a tree (lin- den, oak or willow tree) which was supposed to be a holy tree. Next day at sunrise they put into the hole a bit of the sick person’s blood, nail or hair, than they 69 Ibid., p. 34. 70 Slovenski gospodar 18/12, March 20th, 1884, p. 94. 71 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 23. 72 Ibid., p. 34. 73 Slovenski gospodar 18/12, March 20th, 1884, p. 94. 74 Gruden, Zgodovina slovenskega naroda, p. 1076; from Mö- derndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 34. 75 Slovenski gospodar, 1885, 198; from Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 32. 76 Valvasor, Die Ehre, III, pp. 377; from: Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 34. 77 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 32. 78 Košir, Ljudska medicina, p. 103. crammed the hole, nailed up the tree with a nail, and hoped that the demon of the disease would be de- feated by the spirit of the tree.79 The plague kills cattle The plague also threatened cattle. Cattle plague was widely conceived of in animal form, especially in the shape of a pig, a goat, and a three-legged calf covered with spots of many colors.80 Whereas the memory of the murderous plague largely dissipated in the nineteenth century, it was still in the 1990s that the inhabitants of Slovenian Prekmurje described the plague as Divine Punishment roaming the world, from village to village, from house to house, killing cattle in barns and chickens in henhouses. In ancient times, it also killed people, who then shut themselves in their houses and drove it away with prayers and superstitions.81 According to another folktale that has been pre- served in Prekmurje, people imagined the cattle-kill- ing plague in the shape of a multicolored calf: Küga Kuga [the plague] resembles a calf of many colors. It tends to appear in the courtyard or in the fence. Its apparition is always a bad omen. A cow or some other animal will die at the house where the plague has made itself seen. Sometimes, the plague will also trick people into thinking that it is heading somewhere at night. In the same way, it once lured Špilak, a rojar (beekeeper) from Bratonci, to the ulnjak (beehive). On returning home, he found that his most beautiful cow had died.82 In the folktale above, cattle plague was also at- tributed features characteristic of supernatural be- ings that made people stray from their paths, such as witches or nightlights. Another folktale from Prekmurje has it that the plague took on the form of a white calf wandering around at night and barking like a dog. When it roamed about settlements, it caused people and ani- mals in the villages to die. Cattle plague is white and has a bovine head, and pig plague is white and has a pig head.83 People warded off pig plague by attaching blessed sticks behind barn pillars. To protect pigs from infection, it was also customary to hang a toad in the barn. In Slovenian Istria, many barns still have horse- heads and horseshoes mounted on the walls as defen- sive masks. In White Carniola (Slo.: Bela Krajina), 79 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 78–79. 80 Krauß, Südslavische Pestsagen, p. 36. 81 Rešek, Brezglavjeki, p. 91, no. 35. 82 Kühar, Narodno blago, p. 58, no. 50; reprint: Kühar, Ljudsko izročilo, p. 148. 83 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 29. 137 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–1402022 they also used to mount them on beehives and place brooms turned upside down on entrances to barns, as well as pierce tiny holes into doors with a knife.84 In Dražgoše, it was customary to place the cross of St. Benedict on the barn door and in the Pod- juna Valley (Ger.: Jauntal) in Austrian Carinthia a tatrman’s85 head carved in wood.86 Slovenians in the Raba (Hun.: Rába) Valley drilled holes in the horns of their cattle and put pieces of paper in them with various defensive spells or charms.87 Widely used in the eighteenth century was a book written by the veterinarian and healer Johannes Gottlieb Wolstein. In 1784, it was translated into Slovenian by Jožef Ignacij Fanton de Brunn from Ljubljana, a veterinarian of the province of Carniola and a physic in Idrija, who titled it Bukuvze od sh- vinskih bolesni sa kmeteshke ludy [The Book on Cattle Diseases for Rural People]88 His translation was later corrected by Anton Tomaž Linhart, who published it under the title Bukve od kug inu bolesen Goveje shi- vine, tih Ovaz inu Svin [The Book on Plagues and Diseases in Cattle, Sheep, and Pigs]; released in 1792 in Ljubljana, the volume also contains advice on how to treat cattle plague. Cattle was also treated with herbal remedies. In the hills around Škofja Loka, it was still in recent times that people protected their animals against the plague by adding the roots of gentian (Gentiana) and especially juniper and garlic to fodder on Christmas Eve and Holy Saturday.89 Epilogue The plague retreated from Slovenian territory af- ter the Ottomans were finally driven out from the central Danubian region.90 In subsequent periods, it gave way for other epidemics, most notably chol- era, smallpox, typhoid fever, Spanish influenza, and currently the pandemic of Covid-19. Although the memory of the plague has all but faded in the light of scientific and particularly technological advances of the modern developed world, the Covid-19 pan- demic has rekindled it and brought it back into the popular mental discourse, shining a new light on the long forgotten narrative folklore, literature, and visu- al art associated with these periods. In such difficult situations as epidemic or even pandemic outbreaks, people adapt to the new circum- stances and seek a way out of the crisis. Daily prac- 84 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 32. 85 In Carinthia, tatrman was—often in the form of a water sprite—depicted on water wells and buildings for apotropaic purposes. 86 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 32. 87 Ibid, p. 32. 88 Štrekelj, Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva, p. 465. 89 Möderndorfer, Ljudska medicina, p. 29. 90 Mal, Stara Ljubljana, p. 84. tices and narratives offer an insight into how people sought to protect themselves against the plague epi- demic and how they cured the disease. Throughout history, folklore has approached epidemics earnestly and with great concern. Moreover, folktales about the plague epidemic, often presenting the plague in personified forms, narrate how it spread and where, how it traveled, and how it behaved. Now, centuries later, it is interesting to observe many similar protective measures, for instance road barriers, border closures, and quarantine as well as penalties for their infringement, a list of active sub- stances and nutritional ingredients helping to fight the disease. Notable differences are in the narrative culture, which now spreads through the internet,91 and especially in major medical advancements. REFERENCES NEWSPAPERS Letopis Matice Slovenske, 1887. Slovenski gospodar, 1884, 1885. Zgodnja Danica, 1880. LITERATURE Aškerc, Anton: Ponočna potnica. Ljubljanski zvon 10/7, 1. 7. 1890, str. 385. Beitl, Richard: Im Sagenwald. Neue Sagen aus Vorarl- berg. Feldkirch: Montfort Verlag, 1953. Bronner, F. J.: Von deutscher Sitt und Art. Volkssitten und Volksbräuche in Bayern im Kreislauf des Jahres dargestellt. München: Kellner, 1908. Bühli, Arnold: Sagen aus Graubünden 1, 2. Aarau: Verlag Sauerländer, 1933, 1935. Christiansen, Reidar Th.: The Migratory Legends. A Proposed List of Types with a Systematic Catalogue of the Norwegian Variants. (FF Communications 175). Helsinki: Academia scientiarum Fennica, 1958. Dolenc, Milan: Zagovori v slovenski ljudski medici- ni ter zarotitve in apokrifne molitve (eds. Zvonka Zupanič Slavec and Marija Makarovič). Ljublja- na: Inštitut za zgodovino medicine Medicinske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, 1999. Drobnič, Josip: Slovenska pripovedka o Neteku. Kmetijske in rokodelske novice 5/7, 1847, p. 24. Golec, Boris: Kužne epidemije na Dolenjskem med izročilom in stvarnostjo. Kronika 49, 2001, nos. 1–2, pp. 23–64. Graber, Georg: Sagen aus Kärnten. Gesammelt und herausgegeben von Dr. Georg Graber. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Theodor Weischer, 1914. 91 More on that: Kropej Telban, Emotions of Fear (in print). 138 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–140 2022 Grafenauer, Ivan: Neték in “Ponočna potnica” v ljud- ski pripovedki. Razprave Razreda (II.) za filološke in literarne vede IV. Ljubljana: SAZU, 1958, pp. 157–201. Grimm, Jacob: Deutsche Mythologie. Göttingen: Die- terichsche Buchhandlung, 1835. Grimm, Jacob und Grimm, Wilhelm: Deutsche Sa- gen, herausgegeben von den Brüdern Grimm, vol. 1. Berlin: In der Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, 1816. Gruden, Josip: Zgodovina slovenskega naroda. V Ce- lovcu: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1910–1916. Gunnell, Terry: Mists, Magicians and Murderous Children: International Migratory Legends Con- cerning the “Black Death” in Iceland. Northern Lights. Following Folklore in North-Western Eu- rope (ed. Séamas Ó Catháin). Dublin: University College Dublin Press 2001, pp. 47–59. Hiiemäe, Reet: Esti katkupärimus [Estonian Plague Tradition]. Tartu: Estonian Literary Museum, 1997. Hiiemäe, Reet: Narrative Maps of Danger as a Me- ans of Subjective Protection. Etnološka tribina 39, 2016, no. 46, pp. 176–186. Kelemina, Jakob: Bajke in pripovedke slovenskega ljud- stva. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1930. Košir, Pavel: Ljudska medicina na Koroškem. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 17, 1922, pp. 20–32. Krauß, Friedrich S.: Südslavische Pestsagen. (Separat- abdruck aus dem XIII. Bande [Neue Folge III. Band] der “Mittheilungen der Anthropologi- schen Geselschaft in Wien”) Vienna: Verlag des Verfassers, 1883. Krauß, Friedrich S.: Volksglaube und religiöser Brauch der Südslaven vorwiegend nach eigenen Ermittlun- gen. Münster: Münster, 1890. Kropej, Monika: Od ajda do zlatoroga. Slovenska ba- jeslovna bitja. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2008. Kropej Telban, Monika: Emotions of Fear in the Narratives about the Plague and the Contem- porary Pandemic. Studia mythologica Slavica 25, 2022 (in print). Kühar, Števan: Národno blágo vogrskij Slovancof. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 8, 1911, pp. 47–76. Kühar, Števan: Ljudsko izročilo Prekmurja (Zbral in uredil Vilko Novak). Murska Sobota: Pomurska založba, 1988. Mal, Josip: Stara Ljubljana in njeni ljudje. Kulturno- zgodovinski oris. Ljubljana: Mestni muzej Ljub- ljana, 1957. Möderndorfer, Vinko: Koroške narodne pripovedke. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja 1940. Möderndorfer, Vinko: Ljudska medicina pri Sloven- cih. (Classis II, Gradivo za narodopisje Sloven- cev) Ljubljana: SAZU, 1964. Pajek, Josip: Črtice iz duševnega žitka štaj. Slovencev. Ljubljana: Blasnik, 1884. Rešek, Dušan: Brezglavjeki. Ljubljana: Kmečki glas, 1995. Simpson, Jacqueline and Roud, Steven: A Dictiona- ry of English Folklore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Slekovec, Matej: Kuga na slovenskem štajerskem. Slovenski gospodar 17/18, 3. 5. 1883, p. 142. Softić, Aiša: Zapisi usmenih predaja o kugi u Bosni i Hercegovini s kraja 19. stoljeća. Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanaja / Jahrbuch. Zentrum für Balkanforschungen 49 (edited by Blagoje Go- vedarica). Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetno- sti Bosne i Hercegovine, 2020, pp. 155–169. Svetokriški, Janez: Sacrum promptuarium (ed. Mirko Rupel). Koper: Lipa, 1991. Štrekelj, Karel: Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva I–II; III–IV (ed. Matija Ogrin). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2012, 2014. Tangherlini, Timothy R.: Ships, Fogs and Traveling Pairs. Plague Legend Migration in Scandinavia. The Journal of American Folklore 101 (400), 1988, pp. 176–206. Travner, Vladimir: Kuga na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Življenje in svet, 1934. Trdina, Janez: Verske bajke na Dolenjskem: Netek. Ljubljanski zvon 1/9, 1. 9. 1881, str. 537. Valjavec, Matija: Narodne pripovijedke skupio u i oko Varaždina Matija Kračmanov Valjavec. Varaždin: Josip von Platzer, 1858. Valvasor, Johann Weichard: Die Ehre des Herzog- thums Krain. 15 vols., Laibach, Nürenberg, 1689. P O V Z E T E K Pripovedi o kugi in zdravilne prakse proti tej bolezni v ljudskem izročilu Pripovedi o kugi so se v ustnem izročilu ohranile bodisi kot opis razmer in obrambe pred epidemijo kuge ter zdravljenja te bolezni bodisi kot povedke o kugi – demonu, ki mori ljudi in živino. Motiviko ljudskih povedk o kugi je v svoj katalog »Migracij- ske pripovedke« (1958) uvrstil že norveški folklorist Reidar Christiansen pod številke 7080–7095. Ven- dar pa je tematika še precej bolj raznolika, kar lahko razberemo iz gradiva, ki se je ohranilo v arhivih razi- skovalnih ustanov in tiskanih virih. Eden redkih fol- kloristov, ki je v slovenskem prostoru pisal o kugi in spremljajoči lakoti v podobi nenasitnega bajeslovne- ga bitja Netka, je bil Ivan Grafenauer (1958). Kugo so namreč ljudje pogosto povezovali z lakoto, ki jo je v slovenskem izročilu poosebljal Netek. Podobne pripovedi so se ohranile v alpskem svetu, predvsem v 139 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–1402022 srednjeevropskem prostoru, med Retoromani v Švi- ci ter v Vorarlbergu v avstrijskih Alpah v liku po- žerušnega možička Snedeža. Tudi drugod je ustno izročilo poročalo o tem. V Bosni in Hercegovini so pripovedovali, da kugi sledi leto lakote (Softić 2020). Romunski kmetje so, ko so pričakovali prihod kuge, ki naj bi hodila naokrog v podobi ženske, ob cesti na- stavili obilo hrane, s katero so gostili vse popotnike, da bi s tem preprečili prihod kuge. Kugo so si v evropskem prostoru ljudje predsta- vljali poosebljeno v podobi žene, moža, dečka, dekle- ta ali kužnega para. Kjer je beseda »smrt« moškega spola, je bila tudi kuga pogosto predstavljena kot moški, kjer pa je beseda »smrt« ženskega spola, je bila analogno temu tudi kuga prikazana kot ženska. Pogoste so bile tudi predstave o kužnem paru – možu in ženi, ki sta hodila od kraja do kraja in morila ljudi. V nemški povedki iz Schweinfurta ob reki Majni je smrtnik kosil, žena smrt (kuga) pa je grabila. Podob- ne pripovedi so bile dokumentirane tudi na Bavar- skem v Nemčiji in na Avstrijskem Koroškem. Švedske povedke pripovedujejo, da je prišla kuga z juga v podobi majhnega lepega dečka, za njim pa je prišlo kužno dekle (pestflicka), ki je dokončno po- metla z metlo pred vrati, tedaj pa so vsi v vasi pomrli. V estonskem izročilu je bila kuga poosebljena v moški podobi, kot fant ali črni mož. Reet Hiiemäe je ugotovila, da je mogoče v teh povedkah, ki naštevajo kraje, kam vse je kuga namenjena, določiti mentalni zemljevid, ki je določal kraje, ki jim je grozila kuga, pa tudi možnost, kako ji ubežati oziroma preprečiti njen prihod. V Evropi so bile razširjene predstave, da kuga ne more sama čez vodo in da se pogosto da prenesti ali prepeljati v drugi kraj. Timothy Tangherlini je ugo- tovil, da so v Skandinaviji ljudje pogosto pripovedo- vali o kugi, ki potuje po vnaprej določeni poti v kraje, kamor se je namenila in se da prepeljati čez reko ali morje na otok. Podobne povedke so bile dokumenti- rane tudi v francosko-bretonskem, pruskem in polj- skem izročilu. Veliko tovrstnih pripovedi so poznali južni Slovani, številne sta objavila Matija Valjavec in Friedrich Krauß, navdihnile pa so tudi slovenskega pesnika Antona Aškerca (Ponočna potnica, 1890). V povedkah je pogosto omenjeno, da se je kuga bala psov in mačk, odganjalo pa jo je tudi petelinje kiki- rikanje. Ohranil se je spomin na stari agrarni ritual, s ka- terim so v južnoslovanskem prostoru skušali »kugo zaorati«. Ljudje so namreč, da bi se obranili bolezni, kugo »zaorali« na različne načine, na primer tako, da so ženske okoli vasi vlekle plug in z njim trikrat za- risale brazdo okoli vasi. Izročilo iz okolice Bosanske Gradiške pripoveduje, da so v vasi našli dve sestri dvojčici in dva črna vola. Čez noč je bilo treba nare- diti nov plug, nato pa sta sestri povsem goli zaorali eno brazdo okoli cele vasi. Pri tej šegi je imelo poleg risa – kroga, ki naj bi branil pred zlimi silami – ma- gično moč predvsem oranje okoli vasi kot čarno deja- nje, poleg tega je bilo pomembno, kdo je oral in kako je bilo oranje izvedeno. Proti kugi so se ljudje skušali zaščititi tudi z za- govori in obrambnimi čarnimi znaki ali črkami ter izreki zoper kugo, vendar se jih ni veliko ohranilo. Najstarejši znani slovenski »zapretek« proti kugi je zapisan v koroški Duhovni brauni (Duhovni brambi) iz leta 1740. Okoli vratu so nosili tudi vrečice, v kate- re so zašili napisane zagovore, »zapretke« in čarovne znake, ki naj bi jih branili pred kugo. Da bi premagali kugo, so postavljali kužna zna- menja, cerkve in kapelice, posvečene zavetnikom pred kugo, predvsem svetemu Roku, svetemu Bo- štjanu, sveti Rozaliji, sveti Barbari in na Koroškem svetemu Ožboltu. Kršitve prepovedi prehajanja v drugi kraj so lah- ko bile zelo ostre in so zahtevale človeško žrtev. Pri- poved, ki se je ohranila v Treibachu na Avstrijskem Koroškem, govori o nesrečni usodi deklice, ki so jo vrgli v jamo in živo pokopali, da bi preprečili širje- nje kuge. V mestih kužne straže prišlekom in blagu niso dovoljevale prehoda brez zdravstvenih spričeval, imenovanih »fede«. Pred kugo pa so se branili – in jo tudi zdravi- li – predvsem z rastlinami in apotropejskimi dejanji. Prostore v hiši in hlevih so pokadili z brinjem ( Ju- niperus communis) in ogljem, ki so mu dodali spika (Valeriana celtica), mire (Commiphore) in kadila. Med rastlinami so posebno moč pripisovali pred- vsem česnu, bedrencu (Pimpinella saxifraga), angeli- ki (Angelica silvestris), repuhu (Petasites officinalis), šterkovcu (Arum maculatum) in jetičniku (Veronica officinalis). Kot zdravilo ali apotropejsko sredstvo pa so uporabljali tudi krastače (Bufo vulgaris), pajke (Araneida) in kačji kamen. V težkih situacijah, kakršna je izbruh epidemije ali celo pandemije, se ljudje prilagajajo nastalim raz- meram in iščejo pot iz krize. V vsakodnevnih praksah in pripovedih se kaže, kako so se ljudje skušali braniti pred kužno epidemijo in kako so jo zdravili. 140 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN: FOLKTALES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES AGAINST IT IN NARRATIVE FOLKLORE, 127–140 2022 141 2022 SPECIAL ISSUE UDK 616.9(497.4 Dolenjska)"15/17" Boris Golec PhD, Prof., Research Advisor, Milko Kos Historical Institute ZRC SAZU, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana E-mail: bgolec@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0367-0141 Plague Epidemics in Lower Carniola between Tradition and Reality* ABSTRACT The contribution deals with the consequences of infectious epidemics in Lower Carniola, thar is in the part of Car- niola where plaques between the 16th and 18th centuries took the most victims. By confronting contemporary sources and the exaggerated summary accounts on the number of the deceased the demographic consequnces of epidemics are in most cases given a more realistic image. Due to temporary closure of the roads the plaque caused most damage in economy, although it was fatal fort he people as well. With sources confirmed portion of the deceased town population during various outbreaks of the plaque exceeded one fifth. In the years 1599 and 1625 the plaque epidemic thoroughly vacated the town Novo mesto, badly affected Metlika and Krško in the years 1646–1647, and in the years 1691– 1592 Črnomelj. Not negligible were the human victims of the last large (infectiuos) epidemic in 1715. KEY WORDS Plague, Epidemics, Lower Carniola, Towns, Boroughs IZVLEČEK KUŽNE EPIDEMIJE NA DOLENJSKEM MED IZROČILOM IN STVARNOSTJO Prispevek obravnava posledice kužnih epidemij na Dolenjskem, v tistem delu Kranjske, kjer so kuge med 16. in 18. stoletjem zlasti v mestih zahtevale največ žrtev. S soočenjem sodobnih virov in pretiranih sumarnih navedb o številu umrlih so demografske posledice epidemij v večini primerov dobile realnejšo podobo. Kuga je zaradi začasnega zaprtja prometnic povzročila največ škode na gospodarskem področju, vendar je bila v posameznih primerih resnično zelo pogubna tudi za ljudi. Z viri potrjeni deleži umrlega mestnega prebivalstva so med različnimi izbruhi kuge presegali eno petino. Leta 1599 in 1625 je kužna epidemija dodobra izpraznila Novo mesto, v letih 1646–1647 huje prizadela Metliko in Krško, 1691–1692 pa Črnomelj. Tudi človeške žrtve zadnje velike (kužne) epidemije leta 1715 niso bile zanemarljive. KLJUČNE BESEDE kuga, epidemije, Dolenjska, mesta, trgi * This article is an updated version of the contribution published in the review Kronika 49, 2001, nos. 1–2, pp. 23–64. 142 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 Among all Slovenian provinces, Lower Carniola was probably most often visited by various kinds of contagious disease epidemics of the Early Modern Period and, along with Istria, also most severely af- fected by them. Such an impression is largely justi- fied, considering the downright alarming figures on deaths and devastation set forth either by contem- porary sources or by subsequent interpretations con- tained in various records and the literature, starting with Johann Weichard Valvasor. Sources primarily focus on towns and market towns—and quite un- derstandably so, because they stood out from the rest of the empire’s border province as population con- glomerates and social organisms performing specific, especially economic functions. Compared to rural areas, towns and market towns shouldered a heavier burden of epidemics, with a number of documents shedding light on their implications. Overall, among all Slovenian continental towns, those in Lower Carniola, mostly miniature in size and of marginal importance, undoubtedly bore the brunt of contagious disease epidemics, and none more so than Novo Mesto, the second most im- portant town in Carniola and the only one of seven Lower Carniolan towns with a population of more than a thousand. The small size of Lower Carni- ola’s urban settlements makes the excessively high numbers of deaths in sources even more striking and unparalleled elsewhere in Carniola. The credibility and weight of the number of deaths therefore rep- resents one of the key questions to which this arti- cle will aim to find a reasonably satisfying answer. Another, equally important question related to the demographic losses concerns the economic and so- cial implications of epidemics. Due to the practical impossibility of being measured with reliable indi- cators, these are even less ascertainable and for the most part do not allow historians to move beyond the descriptive content and the frame of reference offered in contemporary reports. In defining the problem of contagious disease epidemics, the author leaves aside one of the most essential questions, that is, what types of diseases oc- curred in the given examples. Sources of that time assigned them different names but the same under- lying meaning. They were referred to as the plague in the contemporary literature, including Valvasor (Pest), alongside other general designations, such as: laidige Contagion, laidige Infection, Sterbelauf, Seuche, and so on. Despite their varied manifestations, all plague epidemics broke out suddenly and violently. Incidences of some other similar epidemic can only be inferred from scarce indications of symptoms or dismissals of it being the “true plague.” For example, in the first half of 1599, Novo Mesto was merely af- fected by the “Hungarian disease,” whereas the so- called plague of 1634 in Krško raises some doubt for having primarily wreaked havoc among children. Due to a lack of distinction among different types of epidemics, the common term—plague—was es- tablished to denote nearly all types of contagious diseases that occurred during the Early Modern Pe- riod. In history and vernacular language, the plague stands for any type of contagious disease (epidemic) that suddenly breaks out in a certain area, lasts for a few weeks or months, causes a spike in mortality, and then gradually abates. In addition to the true plague (pestis), the name refers to about ten other diseases, including smallpox, typhoid fever or typhus, cholera, and influenza.1 Epidemic dimensions of different diseases and their indistinct designations therefore command the use of a compromise term—the plague epidemic. Finally, this notion also seems justified be- cause the article is not concerned with the nature of individual epidemics and because the latter remains largely unidentifiable drawing on scarce contempo- rary sources. Lower Carniola and its urban settlements were disastrously affected by six major and several minor epidemics recurring in decades-long intervals be- tween the mid-sixteenth and early eighteenth centu- ry. Conversely, there is no known connection between Lower Carniola on the one hand and late medieval plagues and recorded epidemic outbreaks elsewhere in Carniola during the first half of the sixteenth cen- tury on the other. Featuring prominently in reports are the plague of 1578, an epidemic wave with its peak in 1599, the epidemic of 1623–1627, the long- est plague of 1645–1650, a locally limited outbreak in 1691–1692, and the epidemic of 1715. Except for the penultimate plague wave, which occurred at the end of the seventeenth century in Črnomelj and its immediate surroundings but not elsewhere in Carni- ola, all above-mentioned epidemics had large-scale implications that often reverberated well beyond the Carniolan provincial borders.2 Not only did Lower Carniola suffer in all major waves of plague epidem- ics that affected Carniola, but as a gateway province lying on the empire’s frontier, it was also frequent- ly the first target of the Black Death penetrating through the nearby borders of the Ottoman Empire. The fundamental issue with the topic discussed is the lack of contemporary, particularly neutral re- cords of events, rendering the examination of facts a rather difficult task. A specific problem are poorly preserved sources from the time of individual epi- demics. Somewhat more proliferous are descriptions of their consequences written in later periods, indi- rect reports, and above all subsequent interpretations as the least welcome yet all too often inevitable (and the only) type of source, which may readily provide a fertile ground for erroneous conclusions and expla- 1 Cf. Zupanič Slavec, Epidemije na Slovenskem, p. 202. 2 Cf. Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 95 f.; Koblar, O človeški kugi, pp. 39 f. 143 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 nations. The discussion at hand undertakes an un- enviable task of verification through analogies and comparisons of all momentarily available data. In terms of structure, the sources available can be divided into two periods. The first one, lasting until the end of the sixteenth century, was characterized by extremely rare and limited contemporary reports without quantitative estimates of deaths. A few epi- demic outbreaks are only known from subsequent lapidary mentions, and one can only speculate on the number of deaths and the depopulation of set- tlements by establishing property ownership (dis) continuity in rent-rolls and towns’ tax registers. The second period, which started at the end of the six- teenth century, is slightly more generous with sum- mary information on the number of deaths, and it also improves the possibilities of verifying the data by allowing comparisons of more neutral and mainly indirect reports. The end of the seventeenth century eventually saw the emergence of a new and still quite rare primary source—death registers and lists of in- fected and deceased persons. The discussion at hand prioritizes two problems: the chronological sequence of events and the demo- graphic implications facing individual towns and market towns in Lower Carniola. In addition to high- ly limited official reports compiled by plague com- missioners, the developments can be reconstructed based on extremely rare contemporary sources, first and foremost, for example, on registry protocols and files of the Carniolan provincial estates, and excep- tionally for the town of Višnja Gora, on a few town judges’ annual accounts. As for the sources of more recent origins, town annals provide little detail, vari- ous town leaderships’ complaints and reports lack in credibility, and more neutral information is set forth in commission and vidame town visitation reports. As mentioned, the data for this poor part of Carniola and especially its towns and market towns characteristically convey shocking figures on deaths, followed by significant or complete depopulation and economic decline. After individual epidemics were quashed, the most alarming and sometimes hardly credible figures came from Lower Carniolan towns, including, for example, on more than eight hundred deceased from Novo Mesto in 1599, whose number grew to over a thousand according to another report a few years later. Two mutually independent reports for the plague of 1625 again state high figures for Novo Mesto (322 and 400, respectively), and the town re- portedly buried 331 corpses during the last plague epidemic in 1715. According to less credible reports from Metlika, written four decades after the events, this White Carniolan town lost seven hundred in- habitants in 1646 alone and another five hundred the following year. Most figures above were brought forth by the fathers of the affected towns, where the amount of time elapsed played no insignificant part, but the documents also contain some information of a (more) neutral provenance. Town leaderships penned several other disturbing figures expressed in overall percentages of town population and lev- els of abandonment, such as more than half of the population dead in Višnja Gora in 1599 or the half- deserted Novo Mesto, Metlika, and Črnomelj after the plague of 1623–1627. Lastly, complaints drawn by town dwellers themselves profusely blamed the plague for the economic and demographic decline. The more time elapsed since the events, the greater were the possibilities of generalizing and exaggerat- ing. Thus, for example, the inhabitants of Črnomelj wrote fifty years after the plague of 1691–1692 that the town had completely died out (ganz abgestorben) and been abandoned (verwiestet).3 Some statements and figures above became firmly ingrained in historical memory without being properly verified and considered. Moreover, having made their way into the historiographical literature more than a hundred years ago,4 they continued to be perpetuated uncritically in popular works and es- pecially various kinds of local historical surveys until the most recent period.5 Rather arbitrary summari- zations and errant interpretations of lapidary data would often wildly overstate rather dry descriptions offered by original records or Valvasor, for instance, as the only source for some facts. The demographic losses and their ramifications should be assessed variably, depending on the time distance and the authorship of reports. Sources are replete with overblown rhetoric and cliches, typical of the age. Shocking data on the dying town dwellers and the abandonment of towns underline not only reports that the town leaderships issued a few years after the plague but also statements produced fifty years later, or more neutral reports compiled by the provincial authorities. The style of writing therefore makes the task of extracting facts extremely difficult, especially in the face of lacking evidence provided by other contemporary sources. Particularly challenging are repetitive indications, highly emblematic of the period concerned in general, on the level of aban- donment of urban settlements and the overall share of deceased inhabitants: for example, one-quarter of the town abandoned, one-third, over one-third, half or more than half of abandoned houses or dead. The more precise the numerical data are, the greater at- 3 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–5, May 22nd, 1744. 4 The data on eight hundred deceased inhabitants of Novo Mesto, obtained from an archival source, was published by Ivan Vrhovec (Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, p. 79). The figure on 1,200 plague-related deaths in Metlika was already taken from a letter to the vidame of 1686 by A. Dimitz (Ge- schichte Krains, pp. 61–62) and cited from him or directly from the source by Podlogar, Požari v Metliki, p. 46. 5 Dular, Metlika skozi stoletja (1978), p. 11; Dular, Metlika skozi stoletja (1986), p. 13; Jarc, Iz preteklih stoletij, p. 44. 144 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 tention they attract, be it in terms of years, sums of money, or other numerical indications (houses, in- habitants, abandoned homes, and so on). By the logic of things, such data could be based on a relatively detailed verification, if not on (unpreserved) speci- fications, with the author’s integrity lending the sole guarantee for their validity. The numbers of plague- related deaths provided in this manner would also gain in credibility if produced immediately after the events or no more than a few years later. Another issue is presented by numerical data. The already scarce summary data on deaths can rarely be incorporated into the property and demographic structure of a town, on top of which not a single case features the following two comparable specifications: the number of the deceased and the number of all masters of the house before the plague. The assess- ment of the impact of deaths also crucially rests on the composition of the deceased; in other words, a plague that devastated the economically vital part of the population or the population at procreative age cannot be compared to an epidemic that primar- ily targeted children or the poor strata of the town population. In addition, the demographic implications pre- sented in sources are always associated with other, especially economic ones—quite understandably so, because plague epidemics often left profound and lasting scars on the economy. An outbreak of an epi- demic was usually followed by isolating (quarantin- ing) the infected area, which meant cutting commu- nications and suspending trade and traffic flows. In other areas, the provincial and various local authori- ties set up plague guards to prevent people and goods from crossing the border without health certificates known as “fede.” No matter how locally limited, an epidemic outbreak typically resulted in closing the provincial borders and restricting or completely sus- pending traffic, which had variably adverse impacts on the entire provincial economy. Lasting closures, in particular, could lead to devastating losses in a range of industries, the impoverishment of some social strata, the inability to pay tax (ultimately exhausting the provincial treasury), the shortage of life’s basic necessities and other items, and finally, hunger. The following sections provide a chronological presentation of the consequences of plague epidem- ics. Too little is still known about the factual basis to address the topic from a strictly problem-oriented perspective. Moreover, the work methods and the specificity of sources used require longer discourses and occasional distancing from the central problem. Minor plague epidemics until the end of the sixteenth century The scope of plagues in Lower Carniola before the mid-sixteenth century is open to speculation, and it will likely remain so unless new sources are chanced on. In the Littoral and Carniola, the first early modern plague raged especially in 1511–1512, with reliable data only available for Trieste. As for Carniola, according to V. Travner, the plague claimed many victims among White Carniolans. He arrived at this conclusion by drawing solely on L. Podlog- ar’s statement that the Chapel of St. Sebastian in Črnomelj’s town grove was erected after 1510.6 There are likewise no direct references to a likely pandemic in Novo Mesto, with twenty-four of its 272 non- peasant properties (Ger.: Hofstatt) abandoned or completely ruined pursuant to the oldest preserved census from 1515.7 The survey, conducted in the larg- est Lower Carniolan town for fiscal-military pur- poses, is especially revealing compared to a census carried out in the town of Kamnik a year later, which makes no mention of abandoned houses.8 Still, this does not necessarily suggest their non-existence, just as the abandoned houses reported in Novo Mesto are nowhere explicitly stated as an aftermath of the recent epidemic. Even without the Black Death, there were plenty of other reasons for the economic downturn and the consequent depopulation of this border town. The first plague that found its echo in sources swept across several parts of Carniola during the 1550s. The epidemic spread to the province in 1553 from the Croatian foci in Zagreb and Samobor. Even though contacts with the infected areas were prohib- ited, the disease engulfed Carniola one year later, forcing the authorities to suspend trade and close all roads to Italy.9 In Lower Carniola, it claimed the life of one person in Višnja Gora, the single docu- mented victim. A splendid neutral source for fol- lowing the developments—and one can only wish for more of those—is provided by three consecutive annual accounts (1552–1555) of Višnja Gora’s town judges, without which it would be impossible to even suspect that the epidemic also affected the Lower Carniola. The sheer nature of this invaluable source makes it worthwhile to examine the developments in Višnja Gora in full detail. The news of the plague first startled the inhab- itants of Višnja Gora on August 6th, 1553, when, apart from a regular feast, the provincial messenger was paid additional 6 pfennigs “because of the epi- demic.” The messenger was entitled to an extra fee for having been exposed to danger while making his 6 Cf. Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 95. Cf. Podlogar, Kronika mesta Črnomlja, p. 64. 7 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 105, fasc. 59, lit. R V–1, Der zaichnus abschrifft der hoffstett der statt Ruedolphswerth anno 1515. 8 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 108, fasc. 61, lit. S XVII–1, fols. 157v–160v. Publication: Luschin v. Eben- greuth, Ein Protokoll der Stadt Stein, pp. 38–67. 9 Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, p. 98. Cf. Travner, Kuga na Slo- venskem, p. 96. 145 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 rounds through towns and seigniories. However, the population of Višnja Gora still felt rather safe, given the bustling road reparations and stone-cutting at the town’s quarry for this purpose. Five days later, on August 11th, 1553, the provincial messenger brought some decree concerning the plague and on September 6th a general mandate. Meanwhile, the provincial authorities’ decree to close the roads due to the epidemic had caused the town judge Vincenc Steirer significant losses as the leaseholder of the town’s tollhouse. Therefore, it was already on Sep- tember 5th that he persuaded the town council to reduce his lease from 136 to 100 gulden, although the danger was still not imminent. A few days later, Višnja Gora held its annual onion fair and carried on with road reparations. The provincial messenger returned with new, obviously stricter epidemic man- dates from Ljubljana on September 23rd and Octo- ber 13th, which prompted the town council to assign a supervisor at each of the two town gates every Sun- day to prevent the entrance of travelers from the in- fected areas. On the day before Christmas, the town judge’s annual account focuses exclusively on the in- fected villages and then provides a list of payments to the supervisors. By January 7th, 1554, the two men had received 4 kreuzer each for every Sunday in an arrangement that was considered more a protec- tive measure rather than a complete closure, there being no plague in Višnja Gora. The only days that raised concern were Sundays when people from the surrounding villages and foreigners would flock into the town. After February 23rd, 1553, the provincial messenger brought another plague mandate and, not long after that, the town messenger took some docu- ments concerning the epidemic to the parish priest at Šentvid pri Stični. By spring, the threat neither grew nor did it completely abate. Provincial messen- gers continued to bring various ordinances and gen- eral mandates, including an undated ban related to the plague, together with a general mandate on tax backlog. Shortly afterward, Judge Vincenc Steirer and his attendant could ride to Ljubljana without restrictions. On May 22nd, the town held the Feast of Corpus Christi and the annual fair as usual. Af- ter no reports on “plague supervisors” were hung on the town gates between the Epiphany and the early summer of 1554, they were again posted every Sun- day, starting with July 1st. On July 25th, the plague also broke out in Višnja Gora, in the house of Hans Šeluti, who died after contracting it. There may have been a connection between his death and two town dwellers searching for a surgeon in Ljubljana, where they traveled to bring the collected tax. The town council immedi- ately hired three male and an old female gravedig- ger to bury Šeluti and then instructed them to wait for the deaths of others and bury them as well. The male gravediggers were promised a crown each and the woman a Rhenish gulden, earning a total of 5 gulden and 36 kreuzer according to a statement of payments drawn up a month later. Five days after the plague struck the town, on July 30th, the town council again posted two supervisors, one at each town gate, to prevent the entrance of people from the infected areas. Judging from the weekly pay of 15 kreuzer, this time they must have been posted every day of the week and continued to control the town gates until July 1555. The plague seems not to have spread after the death of Šeluti, whose life was most likely the only one claimed, as no later than August, the inhabitants of Višnja Gora already went ahead with road reparations and stone-cutting in the town’s vicinity, holding their regular onion fair in Septem- ber, engaging in vibrant trade, and traveling to Lju- bljana in search of various necessities.10 On the other hand, as stated, nothing is known about the plague elsewhere in Lower Carniola. It highly likely left Novo Mesto unaffected, or else its inhabitants would not have forgotten to mention it in their report to the sovereign in 1564, exhaustively describing the town’s tribulations and the reasons be- hind them.11 Nonetheless, the plague did make its way into Lower Carniola in the above-mentioned 1564, after it spread from Gorizia to Carniola, where it devastated Ljubljana and drove the provincial es- tates to Kamnik. In Lower Carniola, the plague took the heaviest toll in Šmarje and Šentrupert.12 It then visited again twelve years later, on crossing the border with Styria at Radeče pri Savi in 1576, and then raged across Upper Carniola and the Lit- toral.13 In November, the provincial estates’ registry protocols report on the plague in Radeče, the nearby Kum, and Zagorje. By 1577, the Black Death had already spread throughout Carniola. Special mention is made of Ljubljana and its surrounding area, while in Lower Carniola the peasants around Šentrupert resisted the general mandate on the plague. In De- cember, the parish priest of Trebnje was ordered to stop conducting burials at Šentjurjeva Gora “during the time of infection” and move them to the nearby succursal church.14 Valvasor mentions this plague only once, when describing the market town of Radeče, which, as he writes, God scourged with an infectious disease.15 The severity of Divine retribution can only be specu- lated on using a rather unreliable method of com- 10 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, town account books 1552/1553, 1553/1554, and 1554/1555. 11 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–1, April 25th, 1564. 12 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 96; Koblar, O človeški kugi, p. 50. 13 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 97. 14 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 854, re- gistry protocols no. 6 (1567–1577), pp. 391, 403, 409, 409, 427, and 430. 15 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 464. 146 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 paring property holders’ surnames. Some insight can be gathered by comparing the names of the Radeče market town dwellers in the provincial princely rent- roll from 157616 and on the list of firearms owners, compiled six years later, in 1582.17 The rent-roll con- tains the names of thirty-four property holders in the market town and another thirty-five in the part called Krakovo, altogether sixty-nine, whereas the list of the market town’s firearms owners contains no more than fifty-two. The lower number comes as no surprise because not every house had a man fit for battle, and it in no way suggests that the number of populated houses had shrunk by seventeen or nearly one-quarter. A more revealing piece of information is that only twenty-six surnames had been preserved in this six-year period, eighteen borne by the same mas- ters as in 1576, who in 1582 accounted for merely 50 % of the same families as six years earlier. Although the two censuses use different sampling frames— applying to property holders and firearms owners, respectively, in the market town of Radeče—they clearly point to demographic discontinuity. At the worst, the plague could have partially or complete- ly emptied forty-three or three-fifths of altogether sixty-nine houses, and further considering the dif- ferent sampling frames, this share would still amount to about half of all homes. Such dramatic changes in property ownership could not have been possible in a short six-year span without a brutal external inter- vention. In other words, the changes that occurred in the period between 1576 and 1582 are numerically equal to those that took place in the twenty-year pe- riod between 1582 and the next rent-roll of Radeče from 1602.18 Over these twenty years, the market town had retained the same twenty-one masters and five surnames or precisely half of families appearing on the list of 1582. In the quarter of the century that transpired between 1576 and 1602, the number of property holders in Radeče had declined from sixty- nine to sixty-five, with surviving twelve masters and eleven surnames, i.e., altogether about one-third of surnames from 1576.19 There are several other examples available to compare the dynamics of changes in property own- ership during the second half of the sixteenth cen- tury. Strong continuity of property holders’ surnames is best illustrated by the market towns of Litija and Ribnica. During the twelve-year period between 16 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 107, fasc. 60, lit. S X–1, rent-roll of the Žebnik or Radeče seigniory 1576, s. p. 17 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg, carton 424, fasc. 289, pp. 863–878. 18 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 107, fasc. 60, lit. S XI–2, rent-roll of the Radeče seigniory 1602, s. p. 19 Of the latter, three masters and four surnames cannot be found on the list of firearms owners from 1582, which tes- tifies to its incomplete status vis-à-vis the total number of property holders. the rent-rolls of 1566 and 1578, Litija had seen a decrease in the number of property holders from nineteen to eighteen, the disappearance of only three surnames, the emergence of two new ones, and the continued presence of as many as fifteen (or 83.3 %) masters.20 In 1619, Litija still counted eighteen mas- ters, three the same as before, and seven surnames identical to those from 1578, representing a high 55 % of unchanged surnames in the forty-year period.21 Slightly poorer continuity was recorded in the sei- gniorial rent-rolls of 1564 and 1573 for the market town of Ribnica, where the number of masters had increased in nine years from thirty-three to thirty- five and forty, respectively, taking into account that some property units were divided between two or more masters. Compared to 1564, fourteen (42.4 %) persons and ten (30.3 %) surnames had remained unchanged, and nine (27.3 %) old families had dis- appeared. In the meantime, ten new masters and co- masters had settled in the market town, and nearly three-quarters of old families had remained.22 The difference between the two above-mentioned market towns and the market town of Radeče, where up to half of families had disappeared in no more than six years, is more than obvious. According to contemporary sources, the plague of 1576 affected not only Radeče but also the nearby area of the Kum Mountain. The rent-rolls of the sei- gniory of Radeče for 1576 and 1602 draw the fol- lowing picture on eighteen villages around Radeče and the Kum Mountain. The number of masters had slightly increased from 135 to 138, fourteen (10.7 %) masters or at least their namesakes had remained the same as had sixty-two (47.3 %) surnames, and fifty-five (42 %) new surnames had emerged on the old property units, many already widely used in the area during the time of the earlier rent-roll. The most prominent discontinuity of surnames is recorded in two rent-rolls, one for the market town of Radeče and the other for its two nearby villages of Spodnje Radeče and Njivice. Compared to the elevated areas, the rapid change in property ownership in these low- land villages was undoubtedly owed to several fac- tors; however, according to the list of Radeče’s fire- arms owners from 1582, the time of intense changes clearly coincided with the plague. Out of sixty-four market town surnames in 1602, only twenty-three (35.9 %) were known in 1576, or precisely one-third 20 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 124, fasc. 70a, lit. W XXIII–3, rent-roll of the Višnja Gora seigniory 1566, s. p.—SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 205, no. 35, rent-roll of the Višnja Gora seigniory 1578, s. p. 21 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 205, no. 36, rent-roll of the Višnja Gora seigniory 1619, s. p. 22 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 105, fasc. 59, lit. R I–5, Ribnica tax register 1564, s. p.—SI AS, AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica, vol. 1, rent-roll of the Ribnica seigniory 1573, s. p. 147 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 of the sixty-nine property holders listed in the ear- lier rent-roll. The same share of surnames (six out of eighteen) had remained unchanged in Spodnje Radeče, and in Njivice only one out of nine units of property had disappeared by 1602, whereas surnames had changed on six units and remained the same on two (22.2 %). A considerable change in surnames was observed in the villages at the foot of Kum Mountain, where the plague was also mentioned in November 1576. By 1602, over half of homesteads had changed surnames in Završe (three out of five), Briše (five out of seven), Spodnje Jelovo (three out of four), and slightly less farms scattered across Pod- kraj (five out of ten), Kum (three out of seven), and Spodnje Vode (three out of seven). Given the ordi- narily lasting presence of surnames on isolated farms, the changes in the above-mentioned villages around Kum are rather noticeable: in the twenty-six years’ period, sixty-seven units of property in two lowland and six elevated places had changed forty-one (61.1 %) surnames and retained no more than twenty-six (38.9 %), including those of four unchanged mas- ters. By contrast, the remaining ten villages under the Radeče seigniory exhibited a much stronger conti- nuity of property holders, with sixty-eight units of property having retained no fewer than fifty (73.5 %) surnames, including those of ten unchanged mas- ters.23 The almost reverse ratio of continuity and dis- continuity in both halves of farm holdings must have been the result of a sudden shock—most probably the plague of 1576. A detailed outline of events that unfolded dur- ing this plague can only be traced in Višnja Gora, thanks to the annual account that the town judge Marx Raab compiled for 1576/77. Life was almost normal, except for the annual fair on the Ascension Day in 1577, which saw less trading and poorer turn- over due to the plague and fairs concurrently held in other towns. A decree on safety measures to be taken in view of the plague that erupted in the Venetian area reached the town no later than July 22nd, 1576, followed by a general mandate and another decree, both shortly before and after All Saints’ Day. As stat- ed in the town judge’s account, some master carpen- ter performed his work in May or June 1577 outside the town walls during the epidemic (in Sterbleuff).24 Unfortunately, the Višnja Gora judicial account has not been preserved for 1578, considered the “year of the plague” in Carniola, and the discontinuity of householders’ surnames between the first (1567) and the second tax register (1581) does not point to any spike attributable to the epidemic.25 Nor was the 23 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 107, fasc. 60, lit. S XI–1, rent-roll of the Radeče seigniory 1576, s. p.; XI–2, rent-roll of the Radeče seigniory 1602, s. p. 24 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, town account books 1576/1577. 25 Ibid., fasc. II, tax registers 1567 and 1581. plague in Višnja Gora mentioned by Valvasor or any other contemporary source. The plague ravaged many areas across Carniola two years later, in 1578; however, its chronological course is poorly documented. In the provincial es- tates’ registry protocols, the first decrees were im- posed on individual Inner Carniolan seigniories at the end of September 1578. In July the following year, a general mandate was issued, banning fairs and assemblies as well as instructing to avoid the in- fected areas. In August 1578, the provincial estates considered transferring their offices to Škofja Loka after the plague in Ljubljana showed no sign of re- lenting. In October, the secret court council in Graz reported that the transfer had indeed taken place— however, not to Škofja Loka, which was no longer secure, but to Kranj. The epidemic wave appears to have died down before January 1580, with a single isolated case of infection reported in June that same year in the Moravče Valley.26 Barring a few men- tions of places in Inner and Upper Carniola, there were no news about the epidemic in Lower Carni- ola. Limited reports on the plague can only be found in subsequent writings, including, first and foremost, Valvasor’s. Valvasor states that the plague reached and decimated the town of Krško in 1578. He men- tions Novo Mesto in relation to the plague of 1590 and maintains that it also claimed a heavy toll both in the small province and town of Kočevje.27 The more recent literature then mentions it in Ljubljana and Cerknica, as well as Lower Carniola in the Te- menica Valley, Šentrupert, Krško, Novo Mesto, and Kočevje.28 Although the epidemic delivered an especially devastating blow to Novo Mesto, which had burned down only two years before that in 1576, no men- tion is found on the plague itself, except in Valvasor’s writings. The same holds for Krško, where the com- parison of property holders, drawing on the Krško provincial princely rent-roll from 1575 and the list of armed subjects in the plague year of 1578, neverthe- less allows for certain conclusions regarding the im- pacts of the epidemic on the local rural population. However, as the more recent list bears no precise date, it is impossible to determine whether it was com- piled after or already before the plague. In the brief three-year period (1575–1578), the entire seigniory of Krško recorded a change in surname on 20.1 % farm holdings and the abandonment of 3.9 %. The “mountain office” registered a new surname on 12.7 % farms along the Sava, and on no less than 26.8 % units of property in Krško Polje. Nearly twice as many 26 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 860, reg- istry protocols no. 7 (1578–1584), pp. 91, 96, 101, 121, and 146. 27 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, pp. 242, 488, and 199. 28 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 97, citing Valvasor (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, pp. 199 and 717). 148 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 farms (4.8 %) were abandoned on the plains than in the hills (2.8 %). The changes are especially evident compared to those that occurred in the period be- tween 1570 and 1575, which witnessed a peasant up- rising in 1573, followed by harsh retaliation. In those five years, householders’ surnames had changed—to a large extent, also due to the uprising—on a roughly the same share of farms in both rent-roll offices and the seigniory as a whole (between 16 % and 17 %). About 5 % of units of property had been abandoned. Comparisons to the dynamics of changes in land- ownership in other periods show that the seigniory of Krško suffered many hardships during the 1570s. Moreover, given that the situation between 1575 and 1578 was even more extraordinary than in the years prior to the peasant uprising, it seems safe to assume that the changes in property ownership were largely owed to the plague.29 After that, Carniola experienced the plague in the 1580s and the 1590s, when the epidemic took an especially devastating toll among the inhabitants of Škofja Loka (1580 and 1582) and Ljubljana (1586– 87) and staged the ghastliest danse macabre yet on the eve of the new century.30 The plague of 1599 At the end of the sixteenth century, Carniola was hit by the thus far most severe—and, as previously, poorly documented—epidemic. Still highly lapidary, the provincial estates’ registry protocols from that period provide little else than references to general decrees and correspondence with the provincial es- tates of the neighboring provinces. Between July 1598, when the plague first appeared in sources, and November 1600, when it found its belated echoes, the protocols make not a single mention of it in Lower Carniola but only associate it with Ljubljana and the province of Carniola as such.31 Although from an overall perspective, the correspondence of the provincial estates’ committee of four noble del- egates (Verordnete Stelle) is equally scarce, it happens to provide a better overview precisely of the plague in Lower Carniola than in other parts of the province. The epidemic reached Carniola in the spring of 1599 through Lower Carniola, where it was spread from Rijeka and its surroundings.32 On May 1st, the 29 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 81, fasc. 46, lit. G VIII–4, rent-roll of the Krško seigniory 1570, s. p.— SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 141, no. 29, rent-roll of the Krško seigniory 1575, pp. 481–529.—SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 81, fasc. 46, lit. G VIII–1, list of firearms owners 1578. 30 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 98–100.—Koblar, O človeš- ki kugi, pp. 50–51. 31 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 444, fasc. 291 d, pp. 739–744, May 1st, 1599, ad May 1st, 1599.—Cf. Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, p. 98. 32 Cf. Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, p. 98. provincial vidame and estates sent two plague com- missioners appointed from among Ljubljana’s city councilors to thoroughly investigate the situation. The undated commission report, undoubtedly drawn that same month, mentions incidences of the plague in Šmarje, Šentjanž, Šentrupert, Radeče, and Raka, as well as the seigniory of Spodnji Mokronog and around Krško, where not a single village was report- edly left unaffected. Novo Mesto and its surround- ings attract more attention owing to a more recent report from 1606 on the dramatic mortality with over eight hundred deceased town dwellers, where- as in May 1599 the town leadership reassured the plague commissioners that only six persons had died by that date in Novo Mesto and even those deaths were, as the physician, the pharmacist, and the witch doctor affirmed, owed to the so-called Hungarian disease rather than the plague. On the other hand, the local parish priest wrote about three hundred deaths within a short period in the nearby parishes of Šmarjeta and Št. Peter, and a high death toll was reported from the settlements of Trška Gora and Ba- jnof north of Novo Mesto. According to the report, the plague had thus far spared Višnja Gora, Stična, Trebnje, and Velika Loka.33 By June that same year, it had reached Ljubljana and then gradually spread toward Upper Carniola.34 In Ljubljana, the plague first erupted precisely in the homes of both plague commissioners on their return from Lower Carniola, where they had most likely contracted the disease. The provincial offices were immediately transferred from the capital to Kamnik, and despite safety meas- ures in place, the disease spread to the north unhin- dered, and it continued to intensify until the end of the year.35 Exhaustive reports, written while the epidemic was still running rampant in the provincial capital, shed a highly informative light on the chronology of the disease, safety measures, and various other de- tails. Disproportionately less is known about the de- velopments in Lower Carniola, where high mortality was reported for three towns: Novo Mesto, Višnja Gora, and Kočevje. A few years later, the inhabitants of Novo Mesto provided fairly accurate figures on the deceased and masters of the house, which, for this reason alone, are considered worthy of attention. Because early historiography accepted them uncriti- cally and without consulting contemporary refer- ence sources, the figures on over eight hundred dead inhabitants, including 149 masters of the house, in 1599 were insistently stated all until Ivan Vrhovec 33 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 444, fasc. 291 d, pp. 739–744, May 1st, 1599, ad May 1st, 1599.—Cf. Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, p. 98. 34 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 857, re- gistry protocols no. 11 (1598–1601), pp. 11, 20, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 49, 67, and 84. 35 Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, p. 98. 149 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 published his Zgodovina Novega mesta (The His- tory of Novo Mesto; 1891).36 In 1606, Novo Mesto reported these figures to the vidame’s commission, shortly before it visited to examine the destitute, de- populated, and partially burnt town.37 The credibil- ity of the figures is further questioned in view of the thousand deceased stated in Novo Mesto’s appeal for assistance a few years later, in 1615.38 Whereas the growing time distance alleviated the affected popu- lation’s grievances over the recent events, reports of over eight hundred and eventually the spectacular thousand deaths partly stemmed from the belief that the provincial authorities’ understanding of what ac- tually took place in Novo Mesto in 1599 had mean- while been blurred. Far less ascertainable is the figure on the deaths in Višnja Gora, stated a decade after the epidemic. In 1609, Archduke Ferdinand received a petition from the judge, council, and municipality of Višnja Gora for a tax waiver and a visit by an assessment commis- sion. The petition stated that the plague of 1599 had killed no less than half of the town’s inhabitants and landless peasants, leaving desolated and unpopulated houses in its wake, and that the massive death toll had brought the outstanding personal income tax to the staggering 152 gulden in 1599 alone. It is impos- sible not to notice what the authors really tried to convey. In the continuation, they blamed the town’s failure to pay its tax debt on Vlach troops that had torched and demolished houses and granaries while advancing toward Kaniža (1601), and by causing mayhem decimated its population, households, and the craft industry.39 Like in the slightly earlier report from Novo Mesto, the plague suddenly no longer figured as the principal evil, despite having purport- edly killed half of the town’s population. Not even a carnage of such magnitude sufficed to undermine the town’s foundations; it was essential to state other reasons to conceal the blatant exaggeration. The inhabitants of Kočevje, too, wrote about the plague, and they were the first to do so in the early 1601, in a petition for assistance addressed at the court chamber in Graz. Their statements are only known from a summary report, according to which the plague (Infection) had been rampant in Kočevje for two years, taking the lives of the most promi- nent town dwellers and landless peasants, causing this small town to suffer a significant demographic decline. Yet the epidemic should not have been par- ticularly severe, being only mentioned in passing to substantiate the request for a few-years’ tax waiver 36 Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, p. 79. 37 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, September 24th, 1606. 38 Ibid., July 2nd, 1615. 39 StLA, Innerösterreichische Hofkammer-Akten (hereinafter I.Ö. HK–Akten) 1611–III–105. after the fire of 1596.40 To compensate for the lack of hard facts, the inhabitants of Kočevje resorted to sweeping statements about the deaths of prominent figures and the town’s declining population. Trans- lated from an official language, the Black Death had reaped a minor harvest, smaller than in Novo Mesto and Višnja Gora. What should also be borne in mind is that the short time distance between the events and the writing of the petition undoubtedly kept a tight rein on the authors’ desire to exaggerate. At the same time, Kočevje’s example stands as elo- quent proof of how quickly facts could be distorted and fabricated. Immediately after the plague had run its course in April 1600, its inhabitants sent to the provincial estates a request to defer payment of tax, merely stating that the town had been closed off af- ter God struck them with the plague (vns armen mit einer ruetten der straff, der infection heimbgesucht), and that the ban on movement had plunged the popula- tion into extreme poverty and distress.41 Aside from the economic downturn, the town of Kočevje there- fore suffered no demographic decline, about which its inhabitants wrote much more daringly to the dis- tant Graz a year later. The question of who copied the descriptions of the plague’s aftermath in the first decade of the sev- enteenth century and whether they indeed did so is of marginal importance. Given that all towns whose reports have been preserved from that period pointed their fingers at the plague, the epidemic was certain- ly not an innocent event but one that had become deeply embedded in the collective memory, gradually shaping the belief that the true evil began with the outbreak of the plague and that the disease itself had caused all the hardship and the ensuing economic decline. In fact, the plague of 1599 coincided exactly with the time of major political and economic tur- moil, which was particularly injurious to Lower Car- niola as the province bordering on the battlegrounds of the Long Turkish War (1593–1606). In their subsequent explanations as to when and where the “Golden Age” had ended, the town leaderships most often dwelled on the events of that period, painting the dramatic decline in transit trade primarily as an aftermath of the fall of Bihać and Kaniža.42 Returning to the question of what actually un- folded in 1599 in the three indisputably infected Lower Carniolan towns, it should be stressed that, 40 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 274, fasc. 139, lit. G I–8, June 16th, 1601.—The petition was also summa- rized by the administrator of the vidame’s office Filip Ko- benzl in his report to the court chamber (StLA, I.Ö. HK-Ak- ten, 1601–VII–40, June 16th, 1601. 41 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 446, fasc. 291 d, p. 513, April 9th, 1600. 42 E.g., SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, s. d. Bericht A (the last-mentioned year is 1651). 150 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 in connection to the plague, both Valvasor’s writings and contemporary sources—especially the registry protocols of the provincial estates and records on the provincial estates’ matters—refer solely to Novo Mesto and not once to Višnja Gora and Kočevje. Moreover, when describing the past of Višnja Gora, Valvasor mentions no specific calamity43 and, on highlighting the deadly plague that devastated the town and province of Kočevje in 1578, he says not a word about the plague of 1599 but writes about the fire from three years before that.44 Also, a care- ful reading of his lines on the two plagues in Novo Mesto reveals no distinction between the epidemic of 1578 and that of 1599, which he erroneously sets in 1590:45 “Massen sie /Pest=Seuche/ im 1578 Jahr/ und gleichfalls /!/ im 1590/ viel Leute weggerissen/ und so wenig derselben übrig gelassen/ daß das Graß/ auf dem Marckt=Platz/ so hoch gewachsen/ daß man es mit Sensen abmähen können.”46 There is some inter- nal logic to the statement and its dramatic tone. The grass overgrowing the town’s Market Square was not necessarily owed to the dramatic population decline but primarily to the fact that its trade area had not received visitors for weeks and months due to town and road closures. The unpaved square, which ordi- narily hosted a bustling wheat market twice weekly, may have quite quickly turned into a grassy area. As for the demographic losses that Novo Mesto and Višnja Gora suffered in 1599, new sources and discoveries strongly relativize the tendentious state- ments by their respective town leaderships. Con- temporary surveys of the towns’ taxpayers and aban- 43 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, pp. 628–629. 44 Ibid., pp. 199, 200. 45 Attention to the error was already drawn by I. Vrhovec (Zgodovina Novega mesta, p. 79). 46 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 488. doned houses lend particularly valuable support to the common-sense “incredulity.” They completely contradict the petitions raised by the inhabitants of Novo Mesto and Višnja Gora to alleviate their fiscal burdens and, notwithstanding all mitigating factors, point to nothing less than deliberate deceit and dis- tortion of facts. At least some figures on the living and the deceased were deliberately changed, either amplified or played down, depending on whom they were addressed at. Because they can only be fully un- derstood in the context of the property and demo- graphic structure of both towns, they will be given further consideration below. One thing is certain: the plague that rampaged in Novo Mesto at the end of the sixteenth century was indeed remorseless. According to the vidame’s re- sponse to Archduke Ferdinand regarding the situa- tion in the town, chronologically the very first source mentioning the plague in Novo Mesto, dated March 16th, 1600, the town and its surroundings suffered a heavy population loss (an bevölkerung entplöst) to the plague in the previous year.47 Barely seven years after the events, the inhabitants of Novo Mesto would, of course, not dare to fabricate the figures completely, least of all in their report to the commissioners who visited the town to assess the level of devastation and could easily verify their claims. Another question is how many inhabitants of Novo Mesto really died because of the plague or how credible are the indi- cations of more than eight hundred dead, including 149 masters of the house. Not impossible per se, the numbers strike terror, representing more than half of the town’s population. A hundred and fifty years 47 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 277, fasc. 140, lit. S XXI–9, March 3rd, 1600, March 26th, 1600. Johannes Clobucciarich’s sketch of Novo Mesto (1601–1605) immediately after the plague of 1599. 151 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 later (1754), Novo Mesto had 1,485 inhabitants48 or 5.67 persons per household in a total of 262 hous- es.49 During the second half of the sixteenth cen- tury, ravaged by firestorms, economic setbacks, and emigration,50 the population count was most likely even lower. For example, in the mid-eighteenth cen- tury, the same number of houses (248)51 were un- der the town’s jurisdiction as there were populated non-peasant properties (Ger.: Hofstatt) in 1515.52 A slightly lower number of 242 hearths is provided in chronologically the closest summary data from 1541.53 As for the number of victims that the plague of 1599 claimed throughout Carniola, the only figure apart from the eight hundred in Novo Mesto is 350 persons in Ljubljana, brought forth by Valvasor.54 Counting about seven hundred houses at the time, the Carniolan capital and its suburbs were home to approximately five thousand inhabitants according to Valenčič’s estimate,55 converting the 350 plague victims into 7 % of the total population. The differ- ence from the more than 50 % share of deaths estab- lished for Novo Mesto is more than obvious. However, rather than being simply rejected due to its “improbability” and the silence in contempo- rary reports, the staggering number of eight hun- dred victims in Novo Mesto56 is contradicted by 48 According to the register of marriages kept by the chapter parish, the town had the following number of inhabitants over four consecutive years: 1485 in 1754, 1466 in 1755, 1441 in 1756, and 1390 in 1757 (KANM, carton 66, P/4 1754–1771, s. p.). 49 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 242 (mesto Novo mesto), no. 23, rent-roll 1756; N 11 (kapitelj Novo me- sto), no. 4, February 28th, 1753. 50 Cf. Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, pp. 76 f. 51 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 242 (mesto Novo mesto), no. 23, rent-roll 1756. 52 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 105, fasc. 59, lit. R V–1, Der zaichnus abschrifft der hoffstett der statt Ruedolphswerth anno 1515. 53 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 294, fasc. 151, 6/1549, no. 9, s. d. (Gemainer statt Ruedolfswerdt auszug).— Cf. [Dimitz], Beiträge zur fünfhundertjährigen Gründungs- feier, 34. 54 Summarizing the data from Schönleben (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 718).—Having thoroughly studied materials from the Ljubljana City Archives, Ivan Vrhovec wrote that he could not find any statistical data on the numbers of the infect- ed and the deceased but only tentative indications at best (Vrhovec, Die Pest in Laibach, p. 131). 55 Valenčič, Prebivalstvo in hiše, p. 118.—In 1600, the town’s authority covered 359 houses within the town walls, alto- gether about four hundred, including the forty-two identified houses under other authorities (ibid., p. 112). 56 To substantiate her doubt about the credibility of the data, M. Smole maintained that A. Koblar, whom she cited, did not provide any sources and that the data did not correspond to contemporary conclusions drawn by the provincial com- missioners (Smole, Kuga na Kranjskem, p. 98). However, she was not aware about Vrhovec’s publication of citations from the original source, and she also neglected the fact that the plague commissioners’ reports on the epidemic in Novo Mes- to and Lower Carniola only referred to the first half of 1599. far more reliable numerical sources—two lists of Novo Mesto’s abandoned houses—and commission reports from the early seventeenth century. These are undated commission surveys of abandoned and burnt houses, and insolvent taxpayers. They may be labeled as lists A and B57 and placed in the late sum- mer of 1606, when the town received a visit from the provincial estates’ commission.58 The surveys were compiled for an investigation into the aban- donment of the town following the plague of 1599 and especially the fire in the autumn of 1605. List A registers abandoned, burnt, and still-populated im- poverished houses (109), whereas List B focuses on completely abandoned houses (80), that is, burnt and ruined buildings and uncultivated agricultural land. After subtracting the names of masters appearing on both lists (twenty-seven), the total number amounts to 162 abandoned houses.59 Had the third commis- sion list—a survey of still-populated houses—from 1606 also been preserved, historians could dispose of a first-rate contemporary source on the town’s prop- erty and demographic structure, but instead, we can only rely on the summary report at the end of List A. The sum of 162 abandoned houses corresponds to the overall figure on more than 160 depopulated, abandoned, ruined, and burnt houses that paid no tax whatsoever. It also reveals the amounts neces- sary to cover for the 149 deceased masters and eight hundred deceased in total if multiplying every aban- doned house by the usual coefficient of five persons per household. On the other hand, the summary provides a disproportionately low figure of “no more than 125” so-called real, mostly poor masters of their own house. The rest, not stated quantitatively, are labeled as landless peasants (inwohner) and thrash- 57 List A (1606): SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 258, fasc. 133, lit. R V–4.—List B (1606): ibid., carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2. 58 Dating both lists to 1606 seems reasonable, given the ex- tremely high numbers of burnt and abandoned houses con- tained in both lists as well as an indication on List A that the house of Hans Dlaka in the Market Square had already been “abandoned for thirty years since the first fire” (1576). Furthermore, the merchant Adam Gričar declared himself unable to pay the entire amount of tax because he had not en- gaged in any craft and trading activity for seven years (since the plague of 1599!). Even more accurate is the dating of List B, which sets forth the sum of tax loss amounting to 236 gul- den and 27 kreuzer, mentioned in the commission report of September 24th, 1606. The sum refers to the revenues from widows, orphans, and landless peasants registered on List A (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2). 59 With only twenty-four names duplicated, most masters of the house on lists A and B were different individuals. Also, instead of three masters from List A, List B states widows and heirs. The conclusion that List A classifies all twenty-seven twice registered houses as completely depopulated and aban- doned points with certainty that List B indeed focuses exclu- sively on completely empty and ruined households. Also, two of four houses that are not explicitly classified as abandoned had long been deserted according to List A. 152 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 ers (drescher) who paid little or no tax. In fact, these houses should be considered as part of the above- stated 160 abandoned homes, which were nonethe- less occupied, albeit by landless peasants. The aban- donment of Novo Mesto was therefore first and foremost a structural one: solid masters of the house were replaced by fiscally insolvent occupants, and the aggregate of both summary items reflects a realistic picture of about 285 former homes.60 This also seems to solve the mystery of how pre- cisely the inhabitants of Novo Mesto had arrived at the 149 deceased masters and a total of over eight hundred victims of the epidemic—or it allows for at least one probable answer. If the estimate of 162 abandoned houses is reduced by those thirteen clear- ly listed as newly depopulated homes after being razed by the fire in the autumn of 1605, there re- main exactly 149 abandoned houses with the names and surnames of their former masters. This number of completely abandoned and half-emptied homes, which now housed the town’s impoverished, could have been presented at any given moment to the visi- tation commission for whom the information was in- tended. Yet the inhabitants of Novo Mesto shrewdly portrayed all former homes, many already abandoned for decades, as casualties of the plague. From here, it was only one step to reach the total of over eight hun- dred deaths. The town fathers merely had to multiply each deceased master by 5.4 family members, which was a slightly lower coefficient than the average of household members in 1754. And finally, as noted, the number eight hundred could also be arrived at us- ing a much simpler calculation: about 160 abandoned households, multiplied by five persons. To dwell a little longer on the analysis of the 149 of altogether 162 abandoned (completely and partially depopulated) homes; after subtracting the thirteen burnt houses that were completely aban- doned after the fire in 1605, it becomes clear that not a negligible part of houses had already been de- 60 In 1515, 272 non-peasant properties (Ger.: Hofstatt) fell un- der the town’s jurisdiction, 248 populated and twenty-four abandoned (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 105, fasc. 59, lit. R V–1). The next complete fiscal source is from 1726, stating 249 populated and forty-seven abandoned houses, altogether 296 house-lots (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, 3. 10. 1726). Although the summary from 1606 affirms that many aban- doned land plots in the surroundings of Sv. Jurij were still not registered and that, in the past (vor zeiten), the town count- ed as many as 337 fully occupied houses (wolbesezte heiser), there is no source to confirm this in the sixteenth century. The commissioners could arrive at such a high number with a census of all built up or empty house-lots, but a document that refers to a completely unspecified time in the past rais- es doubt about its credibility. The same source, for example, also states that, “von jarn,” the town had over 150 granaries (gödner), and yet List B only specifies forty-five abandoned granaries. One could come close to the number 337 by aggre- gating the latter, all (un)populated house-lots and taxpayers possessing various kinds of land plots. populated before 1599. List A alone states thirty-one old, abandoned houses, whereas List B says nothing about the level of abandonment and sets forth above all, if not exclusively, houses that had been consigned to ruin for many years. What remains after subtract- ing the thirty-one demonstrably old, abandoned houses, some expressly labeled as having been unoc- cupied for twenty or thirty years, are no more than 118 homes that could have been depopulated by the plague. However, given the above, it seems reasonable to assume that the actual numbers were considerably lower. Besides, no plague would have ravaged with such razor-sharp precision to kill off certain families while leaving others entirely intact. If the plague had indeed claimed the lives of 149 masters, they would have left behind many more widows instead of twelve appearing in both lists combined. To reiterate, the reference to 149 masters of the house was most likely used to cover the same number of completely or partially abandoned houses left without their real, taxpaying owners. After all subtractions, the number of completely vacated homes and the total death toll taken by the plague of 1599 remains open to debate. It is redundant to speculate whether the number of victims was more or less than stated in the source from 1625 (322, including fifteen masters of the house).61 Suffice it to provide a broad estimate of up to several hundred deceased and certainly much fewer than 149 masters. Rather than decisive, the epidemic of 1599 was a relatively incidental reason behind Novo Mesto’s demonstrably poor demographic and economic sta- tus. The investigating commission, which compiled a detailed survey of tax assessments and losses suffered by each house in the late summer of 1606, stated in its final report to the provincial prince that a looming emigration of the remaining inhabitants would drive the town to the brink of collapse without the desper- ately needed tax relief. The main cause of this calam- ity were purportedly the Turks, who were blamed for the collapse of the once booming trade with Croatia and the Slavonian Military Frontier.62 However, the desolation and dramatic impoverishment among the remaining population of Novo Mesto could not have been so much a consequence of the turbulent bor- der as it was of an overall decline in non-agrarian economy, followed by a series of consecutive natural disasters. As if by an unfortunate coincidence, these struck precisely when trade and crafts were undergo- ing an acute crisis. In a relatively short period, the town was devastated by no less than four fires—1540, 1576, 1584, and 1605—which then various petitions and descriptions persistently described as the fun- 61 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, May 9th, 1626.—Cf. Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, p. 82. 62 Ibid., September 24th, 1606 (commission report). 153 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 damental reason for the town’s decline.63 Already in 1564, the inhabitants of Novo Mesto complained about their fellow townsmen emigrating and leaving behind empty houses or tenants.64 Three years later, after the town was almost completely razed by the fire in 1576, its leadership lamented the departure of a no small number of families, which had left as much as one-third of the town abandoned or unde- veloped (öder oder unausgebaut verbleibt).65 What is particularly striking is that after this fire and that in 1584,66 all petitions for tax relief fail to mention a single word about the consequences of the plague of 1578, for which Valvasor remains the only known source.67 The town already suffered significant demo- graphic losses before the plague year of 1599. When they requested for a commission inspection of the town to yield a realistic tax base assessment in 1595, Novo Mesto’s inhabitants reported that the big- gest and most magnificent houses stood empty and deserted, while smallholdings (Ger.: Keusche) lan- guished in poverty,68 which only grew deeper during the Long Turkish War. The town fathers’ petitions remained unanswered until the fire of 1605 turned the wealthiest and most vital part of the town into ashes,69 eventually branding Novo Mesto as desolate and providing a sufficient ground for sending a visi- tation commission. The plague, included at the last minute in Novo Mesto’s report among the causes for the deplorable situation, is solely mentioned there. Unlike the fires and impoverishment, the plague is conspicuously also missing from both the lists of abandoned houses and the final commission report. Similar conclusions were drawn on the demo- graphic and economic implications of the plague in Višnja Gora, which were substantiated with even more reliable numerical sources. Compared to Novo Mesto, the developments in Višnja Gora are also much better documented in a contemporary source, 63 E.g., SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, September 24th, 1606; carton 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, s. d. (Gravamen, after 1637). All three fires were also known to Valvasor, who further added the fourth one of 1664 (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 488). 64 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–1, April 25th, 1564. 65 StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1579–VI–11, May 29th, 1579. 66 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 855, re- gistry protocols no. 7 (1578–1584), p. 301). 67 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 488. 68 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 278, fasc. 141, lit. S XXII–16, s. d. (ad June 23rd, 1595). 69 According to Valvasor, the fire engulfed the Market Square and turned sixty houses into ashes (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 488), whereas around 1640 the inhabitants of Novo Mesto wrote about fifty-six burnt houses (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, s. d., Gravamen, after 1637). The most reliable source, the commission’s List A from 1606, does not deviate appreciably from the indications above, stating that fifty-two of 162 abandoned houses were burned down, thirty in the Market Square and the rest in the nearby streets. penned by the local town judge Janez Zore—his an- nual account for the one-year term of office from June 24th, 1599, to the same date the following year.70 The document is less revealing than its pre- decessor for 1553/1554 and paints a picture of an almost ordinary year. Albeit containing no mention of plague-related deaths or specifying the plague gravediggers’ names, it nevertheless provides enough information to demonstrate that the risk of infec- tion was real. On the other hand, the epidemic could not have claimed a heavy death toll, which would have manifested in the abandonment of (half of ) the town. Again, according to the May report to the pro- vincial estates, Višnja Gora had until then escaped the plague,71 and the town’s complaints to Archduke Ferdinand that reached Graz on June 12th, 1599, say nothing about its outbreak while reporting on no less than one-third of the town abandoned.72 Consider- ing that it traveled for no more than two weeks, the letter describes the situation in Višnja Gora at the end of May or in early June. The undocumented time up to June 24, 1599, during which the plague should have claimed the heaviest death toll, was less than a month, but on Zore’s taking up his one-year term of judicial office, there were still no signs of turmoil and no plague closure, which should have been imposed in the event of mass burials. The newly appoint- ed judge took a lease of the tollhouse at the usual amount (104 gulden and 50 kreuzer), and the town feast cost as much as it did in previous years. The dis- ease must have occurred only later and disappeared by mid-March the following year. Namely, on March 20th, 1600, the town judge set out for Ljubljana in the company of the town clerk to visit the vidame regarding the confirmation of his term of office and the elimination of the plague closure (Wando), and on the same morning, the town councilors already met for breakfast at Zore’s house without fear. Para- lyzed traffic and trade thus delayed the confirmation of the town judge, which ordinarily followed on the heels of the election, for almost nine months, but not necessarily “through the fault” of Višnja Gora’s inhabitants. Specifically, in the autumn of 1599, the provincial offices were transferred from the plague- ridden Ljubljana to Kamnik and less urgent matters were postponed to a safer date. The judicial account of Višnja Gora does not provide the exact date on which the closure was imposed on the town, nor does it describe its direct impact. No restrictions seem to have been placed at any time on the passing from and to the town by locals and foreigners, respectively. 70 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, town account book 1599/1600. 71 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 444, fasc. 291 d, p. 743, ad May 1st, 1599.—Cf. Smole, Kuga na Kranj- skem, p. 98. 72 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko carton 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–3, June 12th, 1599. 154 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 As always, the regular council meeting was held in the autumn, the town envoys journeyed to Graz and back, Višnja Gora received provincial messengers, beggars, and other foreigners, and the town fathers continued to appoint officials.73 Life in the town was equally busy during winter months: tax was collected on the last day of January and a deal was concluded for the town messenger’s house on February 21st, after which the inhabitants of Višnja Gora and the parish priest spent a few days discussing matters concerning the spiritual assistant and teacher—all this during the closure, which was still in place on March 20th. The town judge’s bill of costs only refers to the plague indirectly, through occasional mentions of burials. Between July 28th and August 8th, 1599, for example, two representatives of the town were sent to the parish priest “to discuss the burial of those from the village of Kriška Vas,” and in mid-November the town paid for a boy’s burial. At the end of 1599 or the beginning of the next year, the town messenger died and was promptly replaced by another, and in January 1600 the town judge included a swineherd’s post-burial feast among the expenses. On April 10th, after the town judge and clerk returned from Lju- bljana and the closure was lifted, the former grave- digger Matija Arbeiter, who interred the swineherd in January, received the promised payment for his burials (wegen seiner zuegesagten besoldung der be- grebnus halber). The word “burial” in plural form and the item “1 gulden and 36 kreuzer” suggest that he had buried at least a few people. Interestingly, how- ever, this time one gravedigger was enough, unlike in 1554 when the town hired four and paid them for a month’s work an amount almost four times higher than the sum now paid to Arbeiter. Moreover, unlike its predecessor from a little less than fifty years be- fore, which makes several mentions of the epidemic, the town judge’s annual account for 1599/1600 con- tains a single direct reference to the disease, made only after the danger had passed, on June 14th, 1600, when the provincial messenger brought a general mandate on “Infection alda.” Meanwhile, the inhab- itants of Višnja Gora had been vigorously restor- ing town buildings, collecting taxes, and litigating, apart from which they also held the Feast of Corpus Christi and the annual fair. In the light of the above, the contemporary source provides no basis to substantiate the reported deaths of half of the town’s inhabitants and landless peasants. In addition, for Višnja Gora there exists a continuous series of annual tax registers issued every 73 A partial standstill in view of the “ex silentio” of dates can only be observed between August 15th and November 11th, and even that period saw autumn assemblies, an overview of the judge’s and chamberlain’s accounts for the previous year, and a visit from the provincial debt collector, accompanied by indispensable feasts. few years, starting with 1567. Clearly specifying the composition of the town’s population and its ability to pay tax, the registers represent a credible source, also because a vast majority have been preserved in original in the town archives.74 Yet precisely the registers from 1605–1607, the closest in time to the plague, are only known through doctored transcripts held by the provincial vidame and the Inner Aus- trian government, respectively.75 These are dismissed by appreciably different data provided in a tax survey that was carried out the following year, in 1608, for the town’s internal use.76 An interesting light on Višnja Gora’s allegation from 1609 that the plague had killed over half of its population is shed by their above-mentioned com- plaints to Archduke Ferdinand, which arrived in Graz on June 12th, 1599. More specifically, it was already before the epidemic that more than one- third of houses in the debt-ridden and deteriorat- ing town were abandoned and dilapidated (!). The town leadership also lamented the total absence of trade and crafts, adding that since the onset of the war in 1593 various armies had passed through the town, forcibly grabbing whatever they chanced on and paying for nothing.77 According to the tax register of 1591, when Višnja Gora had more tax- payers than ever in the following two centuries, the dramatic abandonment should have taken place in a short span of eight tumultuous years. In the year mentioned above, Višnja Gora counted eighty-nine homes, eleven free tenants and landless peasants, and twelve granaries—but no empty houses or insolvent taxpayers.78 The one-third of abandoned houses from 1599 could correspond to the situation presented to the higher authorities in the tax registers from 1605, 1605, and 1607, when the heavily abandoned town recorded between fifty-nine and sixty-three popu- lated houses.79 However, the three surveys above served to substantiate the petitions to cancel the out- standing tax debt, whereas the original register for the following year 1681 already listed many more homes (seventy-six). The probability that seventeen abandoned houses became populated within a year should be flatly dismissed. According to the compar- ison of the stock of masters’ names, certain persons and surnames only appeared in 1591 and 1608 and were simply suppressed or attributed to abandoned 74 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, tax registers 1567– 1740. 75 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–4, tax register 1605, 1606.—StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1611–III–105, Steuer register 1607. 76 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, tax register 1608. 77 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko carton 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–3, June 12th, 1599. 78 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, tax register 1591. 79 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–4, tax register 1605, 1606.—StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1611–III–105, Steuer register 1607. 155 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 homes in the registers for 1605–1607. Even before 1608, the actual number of populated houses must have been higher than about sixty, and it could not be significantly lower than seventy-six, at which it stabilized for at least the following two decades. Bearing eloquent witness to that is the popula- tion continuity in Višnja Gora. Although the discon- tinuity of property holding families was higher in the seventeen years between 1591 and 1608 than in the ten years between 1581 and 1591, the different dura- tions of the periods make the difference negligible. In the first period (1581–1591), 48.2 % of all house- holding families remained on the same property and 32.6 % in the second. In other words, between 1581 and 1591, 4.4 households changed their master each year, and during the crisis-, war-, and plague-ridden period 1591–1608 no more than 3.5 households, in- cluding the thirteen abandoned ones.80 Still, it is important to note that between 1591 and 1608 the number of householders in Višnja Gora dropped from eighty-nine to seventy-six or by a little more than one-seventh (14.61 %) com- pared to the initial situation. Since the changes from eight years before 1599 and in the six years leading up to 1605 are not documented, the popu- lation fluctuations that took place in the meantime and during the plague year can only be speculated on. What the figures above nevertheless confirm is that one-third of the town’s houses could not have been abandoned just before the plague in 1599, let alone that the disease had killed half of the popula- tion. Knowing about its rampaging in other parts of the province, ten years later, in 1609, the inhabitants of Višnja Gora simply inserted the epidemic in their petition for the cancellation of tax debt. The number of deaths, which could at most reach a double-digit figure, was inflated to half of the town dwellers and landless peasants, amounting to over two hundred persons in view of the eighty-nine populated houses in 1591. The plague thus only played a marginal role in the devastation of Višnja Gora, which is also why its mention is completely omitted from both the vid- ame visitation report in 1609 and from the report to the provincial prince on the town’s status, which oth- erwise provides an exhaustive list of every possible reason for stagnation.81 At the end of the sixteenth century, Višnja Gora suffered from the same economic crisis as the rest of the province. According to the vidame, crafts and 80 Between 1581 and 1591, thirty-one homes (36.5 %) retained the same master and ten (11.8 %) the same surname, and five persons and seven surnames were passed on to other houses and immovable properties. Between 1591 and 1608, eighteen masters of the house (20.2 %) remained the same and eleven homes (12.4 %) retained an unchanged surname, in addition to twelve surnames of householders around the town (13.5 %). 81 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 284, fasc. 145, lit. W I–4, July 11th, 1609.—StLA, I.Ö. HK-Akten, 1611– III–105, January 24th, 1610. trade took a severe blow, forcing much of the popula- tion to live off the land.82 A conglomerate of reasons ushered in the first stage of the town’s abandonment, which did not end until the early seventeenth cen- tury. How much the plague of 1599 directly or in- directly contributed to the weakening of the town’s economy remains unclear. That year, for example, the town judge Janez Zore collected almost half the amount of tax less (63 gulden and 40 kreuzer) than his predecessor in 1596 (116 gulden).83 The plague was at least partially responsible for this, given the town’s closure and the restricted movement of people and goods throughout the province. The plague between 1623 and 1627 The next major epidemic threatened Carniola indirectly from Gorizia and Styria since the spring of 1623, when strict safety measures and provincial border closures were put in place. The plague first visited Upper Carniola in 1624 and then settled for two years in Lower Carniola.84 The estate registry protocols first recorded it on Carniolan soil in March 1624, after a series of closures and guards had been set up since February 1623 to prevent the spread of the disease from the infected neighboring provinces. In December 1624, the secret court council in Graz issued a decree to put Ljubljana under guard, a meas- ure that the provincial estates criticized as unneces- sary. The provincial princely infection decree was is- sued no earlier than August 1625, when the plague had already reached full swing both in Carniola and, again, in Styria. The regest of reports, bans, and de- crees, issued between December 1624 and the end of 1625, lists the following places in Lower Carniola: Žužemberk, Ribnica, Soteska, and Novo Mesto with its surroundings. Before the end of 1625, the plague receded for a while and then hit with full force again in May 1626, prompting the provincial estates to renew the patent of the plague commissioner for Lower Carniola, after which the abbot of Stična demanded to impose a ban on fairs. The epidemic finally came to an end sometime before November 1626, when the provincial estate registry protocols began to feature nothing but physician and commis- sioner reports, and costs incurred.85 Among Lower Carniolan towns and market towns, the plague was best documented in Novo 82 Ibid. 83 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, town account books 1596/1597 and 1599/1600. 84 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 102–103; Koblar, O človeški kugi, p. 51.—SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 480, fasc. 295 b, p. 999–1001, October 20th, 1625. 85 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 860, reg- istry protocols no. 14 (1619–1629), pp. 261, 267, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 279, 291, 300, 308, 320, 337, 339, 344, 364, 377, 385, 390, 395, 398, 405, 415, 419, 421, 424, 428, 440, 455, and 478. 156 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 Mesto, for which two numbers of the deceased have been preserved. The impact of the plague is best il- lustrated in the report compiled by the Novo Mesto town judge and council of May 9th, 1626, request- ing the provincial vidame to grant the town the right to collect bridge fee. According to the report, the town was undergoing even greater distress and decline after 322 persons had died of the plague in the previous year (laidige Infection), including fifteen masters of the house, condemning their widows and children to extreme poverty. Households remained empty and unable to pay tax, whereas the town coun- cil, in extending its Christian outreach to everyone, had already drained too much of the town’s treasury and their own income to help the poor. The plague hit Novo Mesto in May and ended on November 4th, 1625, although it was still running rampant else- where at the time (i.e., May 1626). A few grudgers then reportedly spread rumors and smears to prevent the town from reopening all until March 21st, 1626, leaving the town dwellers with no work, while the excessively long closure caused damage and devas- tation in the fields and vineyards. The local popula- tion was also adversely affected by the exchange of coins in 1624, and all town revenues were used up for treating the infected and for other purposes. The town ordered 100 gulden’s worth of medicines from Ljubljana, after which the town pharmacist sought to use the receipt to extort another 300 gulden, in- creasing the total amount of the town’s debt to al- most 1000 gulden. The inhabitants of Novo Mesto also owed the provincial estates an outstanding tax debt for 1625 and other liabilities, which they now hoped would be written off.86 The indications in the petition seem highly real- istic. Even though the plague had ended in the town itself by early November 1625, the closure contin- ued for another four months and a half, hitting the town’s non-agrarian and agrarian economy the hard- est. That the danger had indeed passed can be gath- ered from the fact that in January 1626 the physician Janez Scheidt called on the provincial estates for the second time to reopen the town, but they remained unwavering and in June that same year even threat- ened the town with a tax warrant.87 Many details re- garding the epidemic itself could be obtained from a report on Scheidt’s work during the plague that the provincial estates’ delegates required from the town leadership;88 however, no such report, if ever written at all, has been preserved. More is known about the 86 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, May 9th, 1626.—Cf. Vrhovec, Zgodovina Novega mesta, p. 82. 87 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 860, re- gistry protocols no. 14 (1619–1629), p. 397; carton 480, fasc. 295 b, p. 1423–1424, June 6th, 1626. 88 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 860, re- gistry protocols no. 14 (1619–1629), p. 419. dispute between the inhabitants of Novo Mesto and their pharmacist Martin Anton Mladkovič, who had already at the end of 1625 presented the provincial estates with the specification of medicines (dispon- sirten medicinalien) used during the plague in the town and its surroundings and mainly distributed among the town dwellers and the most prominent town councilors. The delegates then reported to the town judge and council that the provincial estates had no intention of covering the costs incurred and called on them to recover the debt as soon as pos- sible.89 Against this background, the epidemic in Novo Mesto was by no means an innocent mishap. 322 dead, including fifteen masters of the house, are real- istic and much more credible figures than the over- blown statements about the plague twenty-five years earlier. The only reason that the figures do not create the impression of greater credibility is that they are significantly lower this time, which is largely owed to the nature of the report. Drawn up only a few weeks after the plague closure was lifted, this document was much more up to date than the report on the plague of 1599, which was compiled seven years after the events and almost casually woven into the reasons for the profound structural crisis. Conversely, the new report, albeit also written in the form of a petition for aid, provides a detailed description of the epidemic’s direct aftermath. Six years later, Valvasor, too, stated that the plague of 1625 killed four hundred people.90 The 322 and four hundred victims, respectively, in 1625 are further comparable to the still more reli- able number of 331 dead in the entire 1715, when a febrile disease took hold among the town’s popula- tion.91 Setting both numbers of deaths against 1,485 inhabitants of Novo Mesto in 1754,92 a little more than one-fifth died on both occasions. However, it seems reasonable to assume that in 1625 the town had a smaller population due to the more than fifty years’ period of structural crisis, fires, and epidemics. The 322 dead thus surely accounted for more than one-quarter, if not nearly one-third of Novo Mesto’s population. Because the plague of 1625 also sent to the grave many from the surrounding villages, Ru- dolf Baron von Paradaiser ensured a lasting memory of it by erecting the Church of St. Roch in 1627, just a stone’s throw away from his Pogance mansion.93 Little credibility is afforded to plague reports that were mainly written in passing. It is interest- ing to observe how the White Carniolan towns of 89 Ibid., carton 480, fasc. 295 b, pp. 1115–1116, December 20th, 1625. 90 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 488. 91 KANM, carton 66, M/1 1704–1728. 92 According to a summary report in: KANM, carton 66, P/4 1754–1771, s. p. 93 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 103. Cf. Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 449. 157 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 Metlika and Črnomelj benefitted themselves from Novo Mesto’s misfortunes. When the inhabitants of Novo Mesto appealed to the emperor to grant them the right to collect bridge fee and write off a part of their outstanding tax debt, in 1632 the authori- ties collected opinions from the neighboring towns. The seigniorial steward of Žužemberk as well as the leaderships of Ljubljana, Višnja Gora, Krško, Ko- stanjevica, Metlika, and Črnomelj agreed to such a form of aid and confirmed that Novo Mesto had in- deed been severely debilitated by various calamities, stripped of its population, and abandoned, especially because of the prolonged plague closure a few years earlier.94 However, the inhabitants of Metlika added that the plague had been more pertinacious in their town than in Novo Mesto and that by killing many young and old it kept Metlika in shutdown for long- er. Poor harvests drove the few survivors to the brink of existence, forcing most from both Novo Mesto and Metlika to move elsewhere.95 Two weeks later, the inhabitants of Črnomelj sent an almost verbatim response, likewise stressing that the plague closure of their town lasted longer than in Novo Mesto and that, like Novo Mesto, half of Črnomelj stood empty (ödt stehen).96 Whereas the inhabitants of Metlika and Črnomelj surely did not invent the long-term closure of their towns, the levels of mortality and abandonment are open to debate for the lack of other sources that historians could draw on for either town, particularly any kind of structural-numerical sourc- es or data regarding their population—for Metlika until the beginning of the eighteenth century and for Črnomelj up to the mid-eighteenth century.97 No mention of the plague of 1625–1626 is likewise contained in more recent complaints and Valvasor’s writings, and the only contemporary report available is a notice from August 1625 concerning the ban on weekly fairs in Metlika.98 The epidemic only reached the town of Krško in the second wave. According to the annals in the Krško town book, it spread to this urban settlement on the Sava around All Saints’ Day in 1626 and lasted until the New Year. The notice on the plague is very meager, especially compared to records on natural disasters and troubles in the ensuing years, making it reasonable to assume that the number of 94 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–2, February 7th, 1632, August 31st, 1632, September 9th, 1632, September 20th, 1632, August 1st, 1632, August 15th, 1632, October 30th, 1635. 95 Ibid., August 1st, 1632. 96 Ibid., August 15th, 1632. 97 Metlika’s civil registers were started after the fire of 1705 and Črnomelj’s no earlier than 1753. The first census of houses in Metlika, contained in the Theresian Cadaster (1752), was produced soon after the oldest preserved census for Črnomelj (1744). 98 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 860, re- gistry protocols no. 14 (1619–1629), p. 428. victims was rather limited.99 Equally meager are reports on the plague in Višnja Gora, otherwise the Lower Carniolan town best documented through local sources. The town judge’s annual account for 1623/24 only mentions the epidemic indirectly, in a record dated July 1623 concerning the reimbursement of a messenger who had arrived from Ljubljana on a plague-related mat- ter (wegen der infection).100 Although the judicial ac- counts have not been preserved for the next two years, Višnja Gora must have been safe from the plague based on a report on the ongoing reparations of the provincial road that the town submitted to the pro- vincial estates in August 1625.101 The town judge’s annual account for the period between the mid-1626 and the mid-1627 then describes a perfectly normal life and a vibrant flow of people and goods. It was only in mid-December 1626 that the inhabitants of Višnja Gora sent a messenger with a plague epistle to the provisional plague administrators in Ljublja- na. Beyond the reference to the epistle, nothing is known about its content and the past developments in the town. On the other hand, an evident threat loomed over Višnja Gora’s wider surroundings, given that the plague (der infection halber) had decimated the town judge’s income that year from the tollhouse at Šmartno pri Litiji, which the town held in lease.102 However, as can be gathered from the town tax reg- isters, the plague certainly had not emptied Višnja Gora’s households. After the town registered seven- ty-nine populated homes and two abandoned houses in 1620, there are barely any detectable differences in 1629, with seventy-eight houses and one abandoned parcel of land, and a steady continuity of property holders’ surnames.103 Turning to other Lower Carniolan urban settle- ments, the plague also appears to not have spared 99 The following year, in 1628, the wider Krško area was devas- tated by an earthquake, followed by a flood in August, which exerted a heavy toll among peasants and cattle. Horrific af- tershocks continued for another five yearly quarters until the mid-1629. As a result, that and the ensuing year were a pe- riod of severe scarcity; “several thousand” people went bank- rupt or died of hunger, and “several thousand” moved with their wives and children to Hungary and Turkey and became their subjects.—SI AS 1080, Zbirka Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko, Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo in Historičnega društva za Kranjsko, carton 8, fasc. 11, Civitatensia, Mesto Krško, town book 1539–1679.—Cf. [Dimitz], Annalen der landesfürstlichen Stadt Gurkfeld, p. 84. Cf. Koblar, Iz kro- nike krškega mesta, p. 22.—Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 103. 100 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, town account books 1626/1627. 101 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 480, fasc. 295 b, pp. 729–730, August 4th, 1625. 102 On February 5th, 1627, the judge Janez Markovič received no more than 6 gulden, 22 kreuzer, and 1 pfennig from the tollhouse official Janez Plevnik (SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, town account books: 1626/1627). 103 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, tax registers 1620 and 1629. 158 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 the market towns of Žužemberk and Ribnica, both mentioned in the registry regest on “plague reports” from 1624–1625.104 What kind of reports the pro- vincial estates received from there remains unknown, just as hardly any contemporary source exists on this plague. Only Dietrich Baron von Auersperg com- plained at the end of August 1625 that the epidemic had left the Žužemberk seigniory in such a shambles that he could hardly draw any benefit and collect- able tax from it.105 According to V. Travner citing an unidentified source, Žužemberk’s death toll in 1625 was so high that the town cemetery was too small to cope. Burials were moved to the parish field, thence- forth dubbed “Kužni dol” (Plague Hollow), and a tract of land on the right bank of the Krka, where the Church of St. Roch was erected in the village of Stranska Vas the next year in collaboration with the inhabitants of the upper Krka valley.106 As regards the victims of Žužemberk, the actual demographic losses suffered by the market town itself are still up for debate. Owing to the lack of relevant sources, a tentative answer can be obtained by comparing property ownership in seigniorial rent-rolls from 1619 and 1644, which reveals no major turmoil but, to the contrary, even shows that the settlement of smallholdings (Ger.: Keusche) on the right bank of the Krka as much as doubled in the course of twenty- five years.107 It is also possible to ascertain a steady continuity of property ownership with 57.3 % units of property remaining in the hands of the same fami- lies as in 1619.108 The only reference to the plague in connection with Ribnica is contained in a “plague report” sent to the provincial estates in 1624–1625.109 Apart from the fact that this period coincided with the construction of the Church of St. Roch in the vil- lage of Dolenja Vas,110 more tangible traces of the 104 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 860, re- gistry protocols no. 14 (1619–1629), p. 395. 105 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 480, fasc. 295 b, p. 793, August 30th, 1625. 106 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 103. 107 In 1619, Žužemberk registered eighty-nine property (house-) holders, sixty-eight in the center of the market town on the left bank of the Krka and twenty-one on the other side of the river. Twenty-five years later, the total number of all masters rose to 103—dropping to sixty-two in the center of the mar- ket town and climbing to forty-one on the right bank of the Krka. 108 There is a noticeable difference in the continuity of property holding families between the twenty-seven years’ period of 1592–1619 (34.04 %) and the twenty-five years’ period of 1644–1669 (30.10 %).—ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–68, Rent-roll Seisenberg 1592–1597, fols. 1–28v; A–15–70, Rent-roll Seisenberg 1619–1624, fol. 1–35v; A–15–72, Rent-roll Seisenberg 1644–1651, fols. 1–28; A–15–80, Rent- roll Seisenberg 1669–1676, s. p. 109 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 860, re- gistry protocols no. 14 (1619–1629), p. 395. 110 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 103.—Valvasor only refers to the Church of St. Roch as the eighteenth Ribnica succursal “nechst bey der Pfarrkirchen” (Valvasor, Die Ehre VIII, p. 796). epidemic have also yet to be found in more recent sources. Indirect witnesses to the plague are perhaps the rent-rolls of the seigniory of Ribnica. Between 1621 and 1659, marking the beginning and the end of the period, during which Lower Carniola was struck by two severe plague epidemics, the market town suffered a heavy population loss. The rent-roll from 1659 sets forth a downright dramatic decline in the number of both hide owners and smallhold- ers (Ger.: Keuschler), with only fifty-one masters of the house or 44 % less than nearly four decades earlier, in 1621, when there were still ninety-one.111 No major upturn was seen for the next fifty years,112 despite Valvasor’s assurances that Ribnica experi- enced a new “boom” after the devastating fires in the fifteenth century. What seems surprising is that Val- vasor knew about the fateful events of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but remained mute on the possible plague epidemics or fires in the not as dis- tant seventeenth century.113 The 1630s ushered in a period of relative relief to the Slovenian provinces between the major epi- demics in the 1620s and 1640s, while the plague ravaged Istria in 1631, hitting the towns of Koper and Pula the hardest.114 The news about the disease startled Carniolans in the summer and autumn of 1631, when it appeared in Rihemberk in Gorizia and around Ilirska Bistrica and the small town of Lož in Carniola.115 Conversely, there is no evidence to suggest that it spread to Lower Carniola. For Au- gust 19th, 1631, for example, the Višnja Gora town judge’s annual account merely mentions the arrival of a provincial messenger bringing reports on sects, outstanding tax debt, and the plague.116 The Black Death struck again in 1634, when it reaped a par- ticularly heavy death toll in the Vipava Valley and reached the doorstep of Idrija. It had a similarly limited scope in Lower Carniola, where its sole in- cidence was recorded in Krško.117 According to the town annals, the disease reached Krško around the Feast of St. Luke (October 18th) in 1634 and did not recede until the Epiphany ( January 6th) the fol- 111 SI AS, AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica, vol. 2, rent-roll 1621, s. p.; vol. 3, rent-roll 1659, s. p. 112 The seigniorial rent-roll from 1707–1710 states altogether fifty-six hide owners and smallholders in the market town (SI AS, AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica, vol. 4, rent-roll 1707– 1710, fols. 1–46). 113 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 468. 114 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 103–104. 115 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 861, registry protocols no. 15 (1630–1645), pp. 59, 63, and 66.— Describing the plague, the inhabitants of Lož write about the economic losses rather than the victims, and the plague helped them negotiate the Cerknica fair to be transferred to their town (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 184, fasc. 104, lit. L I–8, November 28th, 1635; carton 197, fasc. 107, lit. L XX–8, November 16th, 1634). 116 SI AS, Mestni arhiv Višnja Gora, fasc. IV, town account books 1631/2. 117 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 104. 159 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 lowing year. Thanks to swift precautionary and pre- ventive measures, it killed no more than twenty-two persons, mostly children.118 Given the heaviest death toll among the children’s population, it would be in- teresting to determine what type of disease it was. Obviously, the fear of catastrophe was bigger than the actual threat and considering twenty-two as a minor death toll suggests that the plague of 1626– 1627 had a deadlier course. The plague between 1645 and 1650 Spread widely across Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria, this plague epidemic most likely claimed fewer lives than its predecessors, but it etched itself into the popular memory as the longest and the last major plague on Carniolan soil. Four decades later, Valvasor, who in his writings mentions no plague in relation to so many places as this most recent one, seems more objective in estimating its scope than the leaderships of the affected towns. In his words, the plague of 1646 ravaged and took an enormous human toll in Krško and its surroundings. He is similarly unexplicit about Metlika, maintaining that that same year God unleashed a plague which of- ten ran rampant among the inhabitants of the town and its surroundings. In the chapter on Novo Mesto, he also describes Metlika’s death toll and, compared to the four hundred death cases in 1625, refers to the victims of 1648 as “no more than eighteen per- sons.” In relation to other towns and market towns, he clearly does not consider the epidemic from forty years earlier as noteworthy, making a sole reference to a plague ravaging the small town of Svibno and its castle in 1646.119 Nothing is likewise known about the epidemic in other parts of Lower Carniola from contemporary reports, which remain silent on the epidemic in Kočevje and a significant part of western Lower Carniola. Novo Mesto, which had been drained of much of its population during the plague epidemics of 1599 and 1625, seems to have weathered the plague wave in 1645–1650 much better than some other parts of Lower Carniola. Whereas the historiographical and other literature, except Valvasor, says nothing about a possible incidence of the plague in the Lower Carni- olan capital, it mentions its ravages in Krško, Met- lika, Svibno, and Radeče.120 Contemporary reports differ in terms of their scope, content, and purpose, 118 SI AS 1080, Zbirka Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko, Mu- zejskega društva za Slovenijo in Historičnega društva za Kranjsko, carton 8, fasc. 11, Civitatensia, Mesto Krško, town book 1539–1679, s. p.—Cf. [Dimitz], Annalen der lan- desfürstlichen Stadt Gurkfeld, p. 84.—Koblar, Iz kronike krškega mesta, pp. 22–23. 119 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, pp. 242, 389, 488, and 502. 120 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 110–111.—Koblar, O človeški kugi, p. 51. and they have been variably preserved for individu- al affected towns and market towns. All, including the most important source—the Carniolan provin- cial estates’ registry protocols—are characteristically scarce in content. This was also the first plague to be recorded in church registers that have only been preserved from that period for two Lower Carniolan town parishes: the chapter parish in Novo Mesto and the parish of Višnja Gora. A relatively coher- ent chronology of the epidemic is provided by the provincial estate registry protocols from June 1646, when it moved from Krško across the Sava to Low- er Carniola and settled there until 1650, when the province was safe again. Mutually independent synchronous reports have been preserved on the epidemic’s devastating after- math in Krško. The plague occurred in June 1646 in the nearby villages of Dole and Vrhovlje, which were immediately placed under guard at the behest of the provincial estates’ delegation office.121 By Septem- ber 1647, the epidemic had caused such destruction, that the authorities also shut down both ferryboats crossing the Sava at Krško and Rajhenrburg, posted guards in the infected areas, and appointed Baron Jošt Moscon as plague commissioner. The plague re- portedly raged in Krško in October 1647, after which the registry protocols do not mention it again.122 According to V. Travner, the entire town street was closed, and the disease reportedly killed many in the nearby areas, especially Leskovec and Turn.123 Un- fortunately, there are no other contemporary reports known on the epidemic, and the keeping of the town annals ceased just before it struck. Valvasor places it in 1646 and adds that the Krško town council com- memorated it by erecting the Church of St. Rosalie with broad assistance on the hill near the town the next year.124 Produced a little less than a decade later, the long report on the impact of the plague on Krško rep- resents the most comprehensive document on this epidemic from Lower Carniola. The provincial es- tates’ visitation commission, which visited Krško in 1655, reported that the plague had wreaked havoc for two consecutive years, killing many townsmen, women, and children, and preventing others from leaving the town. Unable to sustain a livelihood, the inhabitants became destitute and eventually left.125 During its visit, the commission compiled a list of 121 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 862, registry protocols no. 16 (1646–1652), pp. 43, 46, and 48.— Just like Krško’s town judge and council, Baron Moscon, the owner of the Krško seigniory, and the benefice of Krško, both with serfs in the above-mentioned villages, were ordered to provide the villagers with the basic life necessities. 122 Ibid., pp. 141 and 185. 123 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 110. 124 Valvasor, Die Ehre VIII, p. 744. 125 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 171, fasc. 97a, lit. G VIII–8, August 25th, 1655. 160 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 abandoned houses. The list has only been preserved in a transcript from 1677, which was added newly abandoned homes and titled: “A Survey of Houses Completely Devastated by the Plague, Constant Burdens Imposed by Stationed Troops, Floods, and Severe Divine Punishment.” Sixteen abandoned houses were recorded in the town itself and another twenty-three “below the hill”, altogether thirty-nine. However, various levels of abandonment reveal that some houses were, after all, not completely depopu- lated, and that many had been emptied out before the plague.126 A total of twenty dwellings had been abandoned in the town and below the hill, five were consigned to ruin, and fourteen inhabited by their impoverished owners or other occupants.127 How many households were abandoned because of the epidemic and how many due to other factors at work? Let us recall that the title of the survey of abandoned houses states the plague first, in a way confirming its role in producing the unenviable number of twenty completely abandoned homes, many widows, and houses occupied by day laborers. At a rough estimate, the plague may have killed sev- eral dozens or even several hundreds. The share of Krško’s confirmedly and possibly abandoned houses may be determined only indirectly, as the exact num- ber of houses remained unknown at least until the mid-eighteenth century. According to the list of those who paid annual dues (Ger.: Hofzins) in the seigniorial rent-rolls from 1570 and 1575,128 Krško counted 141 or 145 dwellings at that time.129 After a strong depopulation trend, the number of inhabited houses in Krško settled during the first half of the eighteenth century. In 1752, it amounted to 110,130 which can translate into about six hundred inhabit- ants. The example of Krško contributed in no small part to the relativizations in subsequent shocking 126 Ibid., Specification B, s. a.—In the town center, one house classified as abandoned was occupied by an impoverished owner and two by poor widows. Two abandoned houses had already been converted into gardens, whereas all trace of an- other abandoned house had been lost, two had been reduced to wall fragments, three to an empty parcel of land, and five to ruin. Twenty-three houses below the hill were abandoned, nine ruined, and the rest dilapidated but still inhabited by poor widows and the town’s day laborers. 127 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 171, fasc. 97, lit. G VIII–8, s. d. (1677, Specification B). 128 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 81, fasc. 46, lit. G VIII–7, rent-roll of the seigniory Krško 1570, s. p.—SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 141, no. 29, rent- roll of the seigniory Krško 1575, pp. 481–529. 129 This number rests on the assumption that granaries did not have permanent residents and that other house-lots (Ger.: Hofstatt) in fact indicated buildings. In his reference to 146 families, J. Koropec simply ascribed one family to any of the 146 individuals who paid annual dues (Ger.: Hofzins) in money (Koropec, Krško v obdobju, p. 53). 130 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 239, no. 7, June 13th, 1752. reports on the economic implications of the plague. In their petition from 1747, requesting the provin- cial authorities to confirm the town privileges, the inhabitants of Krško complained that their trade had been driven out of existence by the fairs held in the Styrian village of Videm on the other side of the Sava ever since the deadly plague (leydige Con- tagion) had swept across Styria and Carniola. With all river crossings closed, Krško-bound traders and cattle reportedly remained stranded on the Styrian side of the river, in the territory under the jurisdic- tion of the provincial court of Brežice.131 In its re- port to the court office, the Carniolan representation and chamber supported the inhabitants of Krško in their wish to reopen fairs—but with one reserva- tion: if it were found that the fairs in Videm had in- deed been established without authorization.132 The owner of the seigniory of Brežice demonstrated the age of the Videm kermesses with the rent-roll from 1609, stressing that it did not say a word about the fair being transferred or any plague.133 However, a confirmation that the fairs, more specifically those in 1646,134 had indeed been moved to Videm due to the plague can be found in the Krško Capuchin chroni- cle, which was only started in late 1757. According to the chronicle, the town had endeavored to re-es- tablish its fairs until 1757, when the district governor publicly confirmed the town privileges, including the right to hold fairs.135 Although the plague may have caused the decline in the town’s trade, both interpre- tations regarding the collapse of Krško’s fairs and the booming fairs in Videm were produced more than a hundred years after the period in question and the reasons for their transfer across the Sava. In the sec- ond half of the seventeenth century, the otherwise revealing town’s complaints and petitions contain no such explanation. It is especially noteworthy that the provincial estates’ visitation commission in 1655 made absolutely no mention of the fairs in its minute descriptions of both direct and indirect implications of the plague.136 The fairs in Videm only became a pressing issue for the inhabitants of Krško many years later. In 1674, they negotiated the arrival of the provincial estates’ commission to inspect the fairs concurrently held in Videm and Krško. The com- 131 SI AS 6, Reprezentanca in komora za Kranjsko v Ljubljani, carton 49, fasc. XIX, lit. G, no. 1, presented on May 16th, 1747. 132 Ibid., June 8th, 1747. 133 Ibid., September 19th, 1756, Annex B. 134 References to the plague of 1646 were most likely influenced by the widespread knowledge about the plague in that year, which Valvasor mentioned in his description of the town of Krško (Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 242). 135 Kapucinski samostan Krško, Archivum loci Ppff. capucino- rum Gurgfeldi erectum anno Domini MDCCLVII, p. 9.— Cf. Benedik, Kralj, Kapucini na Slovenskem, p. 435. 136 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 171, fasc. 97a, lit. G VIII–8, August 25th, 1655. 161 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 mission confirmed that the fair in Krško had all but disappeared, while the one in Videm flourished.137 And yet its report says nothing about the plague or the time when the fairs in Videm were established, nor does it explain the situation described in Krško’s complaints from 1686, which, for example, have much to say about the economic implications of the Styrian plague of 1679–1683.138 Valvasor provides a similar description of the rampant Black Death in Metlika, which in 1646 re- portedly wreaked havoc not only in the town itself but also in the nearby villages.139 Whereas the plague seems to have started its danse macabre in White Car- niola a little later than in the Krško area, it swept into Metlika before it reached the town of Krško itself. Its outbreak in July 1646 alarmed the nearby seigniories, which set up guards no later than August, when the disease had already claimed several lives in Metlika. The threat was declared to have passed in March the following year, when Metlika’s town judge and coun- cil submitted to the provincial estates the no longer preserved list of deceased town dwellers and request- ed that the town closure (Infections Bando) be lifted, which also happened. However, they had less success with their petition for the reimbursement of 245 gul- den of expenses, which the town had incurred be- cause of the plague (Infectios Uncosten): in November 1648, the provincial estates’ delegation office rejected their request, arguing that the plague was brought to Metlika by one of its inhabitants.140 However, one can imagine that the provincial estates would have shown more understanding to the poor border town, had the number of deaths actually risen to hundreds, as the inhabitants of Metlika later maintained, leav- ing the town largely emptied out. It is equally noteworthy that, unlike in the case of Krško, no complaints or reports have been preserved for Metlika from the time of the epidemic. Judging from reports produced four decades later, the plague also claimed a substantial death toll here. Accord- ing to Valvasor, the frequent Turkish incursions, the plague, and the fires plunged Metlika into extreme poverty, from which it would not recover until his time.141 Shortly before that, in 1686, the inhabit- ants of Metlika tried to portray the plague of 1646 as one of the causes for their demise, reporting an unrealistic number of 1,200 victims it had claimed in two years “about forty years ago,” seven hundred in the first year and another five hundred in the sec- ond year. Many houses and the town walls were al- 137 Ibid., lit. G VIII–15, May 4th, 1674. 138 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 171, fasc. 97, lit. G VIII–8, April 13th, 1686. 139 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 389. 140 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 862, reg- istry protocols no. 16 (1646–1652), pp. 56, 63, 122, 123, and 298. 141 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 389. legedly consigned to ruin at that time, after which all construction came to a halt for the lack of means and a significant population decline. They also main- tained that no foreigner wanted to settle in Metlika and that even the locals were leaving the pummeled town, which could no longer pay annual levies.142 Evidently, even L. Podlogar, who published this data, found the total of 1,200 victims in Metlika exagger- ated and simply expanded it to the countryside: “In 1646, a terrible plague killed over 1,200 people in the town and the parish (!).”143 On the other hand, a source from 1686 makes no mention of the parish but only of the deceased in the town itself. Knowing very well that the number of Metlika’s inhabitants was far lower than the number of the deceased alone, Podlogar deemed it more probable that such losses were suffered across the parish. Besides, Valvasor, too, wrote about the plague in the town and its environs (nicht nur in der Stadt sondern auch in dem umligenden Lande).144 For the sake of illustration, let us take the data from 1721, when 3,026 persons were counted on Easter confession in the entire parish of Metlika.145 Provided that the demographic situation remained relatively constant seventy-five years earlier, it may be concluded that about two-fifths of parishioners were killed by the plague—but it is completely un- reasonable to claim that the plague took 1,200 lives in a town that assuredly did not have such a numer- ous population in the mid-seventeenth century. The oldest preserved census of town houses from 1752 counts 166 homes, including the castle, forty-nine within the town walls and 117 in the suburbs,146 which can translate into approximately nine hundred inhabitants. The third Lower Carniolan town that Valvasor and contemporary sources refer to in association with the plague in the mid-seventeenth century is Novo Mesto. Here, the epidemic first erupted in August 1646, but by December that same year the town must have been safe enough to receive a “visit” from distressed troops stationed at the fortified town of Karlovac, requesting the town fathers to provide them with urgently needed food supplies. The news about the plague startled the inhabitants of Novo Mesto again in May 1648. After three villages near Šentjernej became infected, the provincial estates’ delegates were proposed and immediately appoint- ed two plague commissioners. By June, the plague commissioners already had their hands full in Novo 142 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 233, fasc. 124, lit. M XXXIII–9, May 6th, 1686. 143 Podlogar, Požari v Metliki, p. 46. 144 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 389. 145 DOZA, Abt. Österreich, BÖ, K 304, Specificatio eorum qui per elapsum anni quadrante usque ad 5. 6. anni curentis 1721 etc. 146 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 242, no. 1, August 1st, 1752. 162 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 Mesto alone when, like the town judge and council, they received instructions on further measures and isolating the infected. The guards prevented people from moving between the town and its surroundings for over two months. Although the threat had appar- ently passed by August 1648, the provincial estates’ delegation office specifically advised Novo Mesto’s inhabitants not to leave the town and not to harass the guards before the closure was lifted. The threat fi- nally ceased in September, when the town leadership extended its gratitude to the provincial estates for sending the diligent physician Gašper Vizjak.147 As Sigmund von Gusič wrote to the provincial estates in mid-November, the town had already overstretched its resources supporting the garrison and the plague, following on its heels, kept Novo Mesto in isolation for more than fourteen weeks.148 The presence of the plague during the period of isolation is also documented in the register of bap- tisms kept by the chapter parish of Novo Mesto. The entries of three godchildren on June 1st, 1648, are followed by a separate undated entry of “tem- pore pestis,” and the next baptism took place on June 7th under the suspicion of infection (in suspec- tione infectionis seu pestis). On June 18th and 21st, two newborns were brought to the chapter church from infected homes (ex infecta domo), after which no baptism is recorded between June 24th and July 23rd. Furthermore, in June, July, and August, baptism was only performed on the town’s newborns because those from the surrounding villages could not even receive the first sacrament.149 Regrettably, the parish of Novo Mesto still did not keep records of deaths, which could unrefutably confirm Valvasor’s claim that the plague of 1648 consigned eighteen persons to the register of deaths. The difference between this number and the four hundred victims, which Valv- asor provides for 1625, is obvious.150 Moreover, these are the only two comparable figures of the same ori- gin. The minor implications of this plague for Novo Mesto are best illustrated in the town’s complaints soon after 1651, which describe the impacts of the 147 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 862, re- gistry protocols no. 16 (1646–1652), pp. 65, 248, 255, 256, 272, 273, and 280. 148 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 503, fasc. 300 b, p. 1027, November 10th, 1648. 149 KANM, carton 63, R/3 1645–1652.—Seven newborns were baptized in June 1648, only two in July, and then five in August. A low number of godchildren in the two summer months is nothing extraordinary and is also characteristic of other years. The epidemic could have led to a decline in the total number of baptisms to the town newborns two years af- ter the plague, in 1649 and 1650. Whereas at least forty-nine newborns from the town alone received baptism in 1646, the same number in 1647, and no less than fifty-seven in 1648, the register of baptisms indicates forty-six for 1649 and no more than thirty-four for 1650, after which their number rose sharply in 1651 to sixty-five, suggesting that the town population had meanwhile completely recovered. 150 Valvasor, Die Ehre XI, p. 488. plagues in 1599 and 1625 but do not say a word about the epidemic from a few years back.151 The developments in Višnja Gora during the plague waves in 1645–1650 are not documented as thoroughly as other epidemic outbreaks. It should also be stressed that this time the sources available keep silent about any kind of threat to the town or its surroundings. What may attest to the presence of the plague is that Višnja Gora suffered a drastic popula- tion decline precisely in the period of twenty-three years delimited by the town tax registers from 1629 and 1655. Meanwhile, during the Thirty Years’ War, the town experienced the second and last surge in depopulation, with the number of inhabited houses dropping from seventy-eight to merely fifty-eight or by one-quarter.152 Yet describing the causes for the town’s economic and demographic decline,153 the inhabitants of Višnja Gora never mentioned any plague or fire, which featured as popular culprits and harbingers of evil in the reports from other towns. Clearly, they would not have forgotten to mention a plague that killed at least a few of their fellow towns- men in the second half of the 1640s or temporarily sealed the town off from the outside world. No such information can either be traced in the relevant con- temporary source, Višnja Gora’s register of baptisms, in which the number of entries during the years of danger in no way deviates from the number of en- tries made in other years.154 There are likewise no reports of the plague wreak- ing havoc in Kostanjevica, the smallest Lower Car- niolan town, even though in September 1646, when the disease had already reached Krško and sowed death in Metlika, the provincial estates reproved Kostanjevica’s town judge and council for their neg- ligent security and defiance of the plague commis- sioner’s orders to post more guards. In January 1647, the inhabitants of Kostanjevica were called upon once again to rid themselves of the plague-ridden Uskoks. But the town was evidently not faced with a serious enough threat and its inhabitants continued to ignore the orders in pursuit of their economic in- terests.155 The account book kept by the abbot of the 151 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 256, fasc. 133, lit. R II–3, Bericht A, s. d. 152 SI AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora fasc. IV, tax registers 1629 and 1655. 153 On this: SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 284, fasc. 145. 154 NŠAL, ŽA Višnja Gora, Matične knjige, R 1638–1656 and R 1656–1672.—In the parish of Višnja Gora, the total num- ber of baptisms in the 1640s (547) amounted to one-third less than in the 1650s (811) and nearly half less in the town itself (60:110). On the other hand, the period, during which the plague raged elsewhere in Lower Carniola, in no way deviates from other annual averages. Unlike the register of baptisms of Novo Mesto, Višnja Gora’s contains no mention of the plague. 155 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 862, reg- istry protocols no. 16 (1646–1652), pp. 74 and 110. 163 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 Cistercian monastery of Kostanjevica likewise of- fers no clue to any extraordinary events unfolding in those years, barring the somewhat increased expens- es for medicines that a Novo Mesto pharmacist sup- plied to the monastery between 1645 and 1648.156 The only market town mentioned in relation to the plague during the period concerned is Mokro- nog. In August 1646, the provincial estates sent their rapporteur Baron Konrad Rues to the infected Novo Mesto and the areas around Klevevž and Mokronog, where the disease had also erupted. In September, a plague closure was imposed on provincial roads leading through Mokronog to Radeče.157 Due to a suspicion of contagion (contagions suspect), the plague commissioners for this area placed Mokronog Cas- tle and the entire market town in isolation (in bando gesezt), ordered the main bridges over the Mirna to be demolished, and prohibited the serfs of Mokro- nog from performing forced labor. The owner of the castle and the seigniory Ernest Schere von Schern- burg rejected their actions as completely baseless and inadmissible, and on the last day of 1646 negotiated from the provincial authorities a decree to abolish all restrictions if his claims were found to be true.158 For places where the plague is documented in the literature, the consequences of the epidemic were the least determinable around the then already extinct market town of Svibno near the much more impor- tant Radeče.159 Valvasor provides the only known source in which the local epidemic appears at all, whereas contemporary sources neither confirm nor deny its existence. With no rent-rolls preserved, it is also impossible to trace the (dis)continuity of prop- erty ownership in the Svibno seigniory, and nothing is known about the plague raging in Radeče, as men- tioned by V. Travner.160 The plague epidemic in the second half of the 1640s probably wreaked less havoc among the in- habitants of Lower Carniolan towns and market towns than its predecessors, especially the two in Novo Mesto. Nonetheless, its persistent presence and repetitive waves left a deep mark on society 156 SI AS 746, Cistercijanski samostan Kostanjevica, vol. 8, ac- count book of the abbot Jurij Zagožen 1638–1659, s. p.—The abbot paid the pharmacist 45 gulden in 1645, 33 gulden and 7 kreuzer in 1646, 55 gulden in 1647, 20 gulden in 1648, and again a larger sum of 42 gulden and 12 kreuzer at the end of 1650. 157 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 862, re- gistry protocols no. 16 (1646–1652), pp. 65 and 345. 158 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 500, fasc. 300a, pp. 1223–1224, December 31st, 1646. 159 In 1602, this small market town only had fourteen masters of non-peasant properties (Ger.: Hofstatt) (SI AS 1074, Zbir- ka urbarjev, II/22u, rent-roll of the Svibno seigniory 1602, s. p.), after its rent-roll from about 1439 still listed thirty (Mil- kowicz, Beiträge zur Rechts- und Verwaltungsgeschichte Krains, pp. 7–8; cf. Koropec, Žebnik, Radeče in Svibno, p. 56). 160 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 110. and a lasting memory embodied in monuments of material culture. Just as elsewhere across Slovenian territory, the erection of several churches here dates to the time immediately after this plague epidemic. Already in 1647, a pilgrimage Church of St. Rosa- lie was built on the hill above Krško to preserve the memory of the plague in the town and its surround- ings. The first of the most important White Carni- olan plague monuments, churches dedicated to St. Roch, is the succursal Church of St. Roch in Met- lika. In 1646, the inhabitants of Črnomelj, who were evidently spared by the Black Death more than their counterparts in Metlika, are also believed to have en- larged the small Church of St. Sebastian, originally constructed after 1510.161 Isolated incidences of epidemics in the second half of the seventeenth century During the three decades following the long plague wave of 1645–1650, the Slovenian provinces experienced no major epidemics, and there are only sporadic reports of isolated and locally limited in- cidences of the “plague.” In Lower Carniola, it oc- curred at least twice, with its presence eternalized both times in the minutes of the Kostanjevica abbey. The pest that visited Kostanjevica and the nearby village of Slinovce in October 1663 was identified as typhus caused by the Krka’s flooding. It reappeared in the nearby areas in 1676,162 claiming no lives ei- ther time in the town itself. This much can be in- ferred from Kostanjevica’s complaints that have been preserved from that period in the form of annals (1618–1684), listing pestilences and woes for nearly every year between 1662 and 1684, without making a single mention of an epidemic.163 Kostanjevica’s town fathers would have undoubtedly reported any however insignificant plague-related mortality or closure, at least in view of the diligence with which they presented fires and floods, and a series of other less consequential events and frustrations, such as the objectionable nearby Uskok community or poor harvests. Despite the complete absence of reports to con- firm it, soon afterward an epidemic of some kind must have broken out on the other end of Lower 161 Ibid., 110 and 111.—Leopold Podlogar writes the following on the construction of the church in Črnomelj: “The Church of St. Sebastian was erected in the town’s grove in 1646, the time of deadly cholera (sic!). The presbytery grew from the former chapel, built sometime after 1510” (Podlogar, Kronika mesta Črnomlja, p. 64). 162 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 112, cites the no longer ex- isting “minutes of the Kostanjevica abbey.” Only the account book 1638–1659 of the abbot Jurij Zagožen has been pre- served (SI AS 746, Cistercijanski samostan Kostanjevica, vol. 8). 163 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 184, fasc. 104, lit. L II–2, March 31st, 1686.—Cf. Dimitz, Zur Geschichte der Städte, pp. 79–80; Dimitz, Geschichte Krains, pp. 59–60. 164 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 Carniola, given a conspicuous rise in deaths in Kočevje, where no news of a suspected plague had been issued since 1599. In the first register of deaths kept by the parish of Kočevje, the oldest such regis- ter in Lower Carniola, attention is drawn to the first four years from the beginning of 1669 to the end of 1672, when 317 persons were buried, forty-four from the town of Kočevje. Over the next six years between 1673 and including 1678, the number of deaths and burials amounted to no more than 287, only twenty- seven in the town itself. Although not particularly striking, the contrast between the number of deaths in the first four and the ensuing six years of keep- ing the death register shows notable differences in the number of deaths by individual years and signifi- cant fluctuations among the town dwellers. In 1669, the town of Kočevje registered no less than twenty of altogether seventy-three deaths across the entire parish. Only four deaths were registered in 1670 and two in 1671, after which the number of burials rose again, reaching eighteen in 1672. It is interesting to note that the town itself never counted more than twelve deaths in the seventeenth century, and even this figure was recorded in 1680 and 1681, when the Styrian plague reached its peak.164 The parish of Kočevje was also the only one among the towns and market towns discussed to keep records of deaths during the plague of 1679– 1683. Whereas Carniola largely averted the plague by taking swift and effective protective measures while the disease ravaged Slovenian Styria,165 Kočevje may be the part of Carniola that had found itself within the grasp of the Black Death. The assumption that the Kočevje peddlers brought the disease from their journeys to northern provinces is open to debate due 164 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1666–1724.—The numbers of deaths in the town are highly reliable, especially for the 1670s and 1680s, when the register of deaths near- ly always states the decedent’s place of residence. The ten- year annual average for the town population in 1671–1680 amounted to 10.9 deceased, primarily due to the high mor- tality in the early 1670s, in 1681–1690 to no more than 4.2 persons, and in 1691–1700 to 5.3 deaths annually. 165 On the Styrian plague, see Umek, Kuga na Štajerskem, pp. 80 f. The marking of infected houses in Gorizia 165 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 to the complete absence of any contemporary report on this subject and the plague in Kočevje in general. Strongly indicative of an epidemic is the high num- ber of the deceased, namely, eighty-nine in the entire parish of Kočevje in 1680 and as many as 138 a year later. The town of Kočevje itself registered twelve deaths each respective year. However, despite the high figures recorded at the turn of the 1670s and in the early 1680s, the death register lacks any side note confirming that it was indeed the plague or an infectious disease of some kind.166 Even a surgeon’s death during the biggest spike in mortality cannot be considered otherwise than a hypothetical con- sequence of infection contracted while treating his patients.167 What caused an increased death count therefore remains subject to speculation. However, it could not have been the same plague as in Styria and Gorizia, if one is to believe Valvasor’s reference to the procession of Saint Roch held in Ljubljana in 1683, thanking God for having “miraculously safeguarded the entire province of Carniola against the despic- able plague ravaging all the neighboring lands.”168 Finally, the plague could have easily spread to the Kočevje area as the typical transit and peddler hub, just as it had reached the province of Gorizia in 1682 from Croatia and claimed a particularly high toll in the town of Gorizia.169 Carniola largely escaped a prolonged plague thanks to the swift, strict, and therefore effective measures that stopped its spread. The provincial bor- der closures were at first understandably much to the chagrin of those whose trade suffered the greatest loss from suspended traffic. However, because the closure also variably affected broader population segments, it met with an overall resistance and infringements in various forms of smuggling people and goods away from the eyes of the plague guards. An informative light on the protective measures and their infringements at the peak of the Styrian epidemic in the mid-1681 is shed by a fragment from the life of the border town of Krško, which depended on the hinterland beyond the Sava more than any other Lower Carniolan town. Soon after the Carniolan-Styrian border was reopened in April 1681,170 the highest ordinance arrived at the end of June on the heels of a plague outbreak near Radgona and in a Celje quarter, prohibiting entrance to Carni- ola from Styria even with a “fede” and strictly forbid- ding serfs from navigating the border river Sava.171 166 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1666–1724. 167 On June 14th, 1681, died a seventy-three-year-old towns- man and town surgeon Bernard Jager. 168 Valvasor, Die Ehre VIII, p. 822. 169 Cf. Jelinčič, Črna smrt v Gorici, pp. 116 f.; Waltritsch, Prvi goriški kronist, p. 196. 170 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 538, fasc. 308b, p. 417, April 18th, 1681. 171 Ibid., pp. 655–661, June 28th, 1681. Soon afterward, in early July, plague commissioners (contagions comissarien), mostly from the ranks of no- ble landowners, were appointed at eight Carniolan- Styrian border crossings and provided with between one and four guards at each crossing. Lower Carniola was protected by guards posted at Litija, Radeče, Im- polca, Sevnica on the Styrian bank of the Sava, and Krško.172 Taking his task very seriously, the Krško plague commissioner, Count Orfeo Strassoldo, re- ported to the provincial governor and estates at the end of July on his measure serving “as punishment and an example to others who might be tempted to communicate with suspicious characters.” Namely, when an assistant harness maker from Ptuj came to Krško, Strassoldo immediately sent him back to Styria after he heard about the plague raging around Ptuj. Strassoldo also notified the guards at Videm and Rajhenburg that the newcomer did not carry a “fede.” A few inhabitants of Krško had conversed and drank with the boy and, although the commissioner saw no potential threat in that, he ordered to confine the men to their homes and the town judge provided him with guards to prevent them from leaving. The commissioner then asked the provincial estates’ del- egates whether to release the men or how they were to be treated.173 The inhabitants of Novo Mesto were more cau- tious, probably having learned something from the example of Krško. At the end of November 1681, the plague commissioner in Brežice sent an inter- esting report to his counterpart in Krško, Count Strassoldo. The Novo Mesto town judge informed the commissioner of Brežice about the cancellation of Novo Mesto’s annual fair on Advent Sunday and requested him to notify the Croats and ensure that no one would cross the Sava to attend the fair. The commissioner sent the notification to Samobor, but to little avail, because many Croats set out in secret to Novo Mesto crossing the Gorjanci (Žumberak) Mountains. The Brežice commissioner then wrote to the town judge of Novo Mesto that every suspicious person be placed in a lazaretto (in ein Lasareth schaf- fen) and punished, and that the goods be burned as contraband.174 The most severe implications that the Styrian plague between 1679 and 1683 had on Carniola were of indirect nature by hurting its economy. The pro- longed closure of the provincial borders, combined with bans on fairs and all kinds of mass gatherings, delivered a serious blow to trade and trade fair hubs, especially towns and market towns. The bans on holding fairs, for example, drained the Novo Mesto treasury—hence the petitions addressed at the vid- 172 Ibid., pp. 687–688, July 4th, 1681. 173 Ibid., pp. 959–960, July 30th, 1681. 174 Ibid., carton 539, fasc. 308 b, pp. 1373–1376, November 27th, 1681. 166 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 ame to write off the town judge’s outstanding tax debt for 1681 and 1682.175 A few years later, in 1686, the town leadership of Krško described the plague in Lower Styria as the main cause for the abandonment of the town. The plague prevented the inhabitants of Krško from accessing their fields beyond the Sava and even more from attending weekly and annual fairs in Styria.176 The plague in Črnomelj and its surroundings between 1691 and 1692 Until the end of the seventeenth century, Slove- nian territory only experienced sporadic occurrences of contagious diseases, which caused much greater devastation in the neighboring Hungary and Croa- tia, leading to several provincial border closures. In 1690, a major plague epidemic in Hungary and Croatia threatened the eastern parts of the Austrian frontier provinces, wreaked havoc in Vienna and the Styrian town of Radgona, and in the following year (1691) burst out around Črnomelj in the southeast- ernmost part of Carniola.177 This is the first plague on which there exists a sufficient selection of cred- ible sources, mostly produced immediately after it was suppressed. These sources also include the only preserved lists of infected and deceased persons for all plague epidemics. Carniola once again successfully contained the spread of infection with the practical wisdom gained from tackling the recent Styrian plague. The Črnomelj area was immediately isolated from the rest of Carniola and plague guards were posted on border crossings toward Croatia and in certain parts in the hinterland. The movement of passengers and goods to the entire territory of Carniola was also sus- pended by Gorizia and the Venetian Republic,178 de- spite the relative distance from Črnomelj and Croa- tia and notwithstanding Carniola serving as their cordon sanitaire. Gorizia still had a vivid memory of its disastrous lack of alertness in 1682. The plague undoubtedly reached Črnomelj and its surroundings from the nearby Croatian places, where it caused havoc in Karlovac. Local Croatian reports described the disease in quite contradictory terms; once it was purportedly the real plague and at other times an ordinary typhus.179 In a similar vein, there are no sources clarifying what kind of disease affected Črnomelj and its surroundings. The list of recoveries divides the patients in two categories: those with carbuncles (carbuneli) and those with 175 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 255, fasc. 133, lit. R I–9, August 18th, 1681, s. d. 1682. 176 Ibid., carton 171, fasc. 97a, lit. G VIII–8, April 13th, 1686. 177 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 128. 178 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 548, fasc. 311, pp. 305–306, January 21st, 1692. 179 Ibid., p. 361, January 31st, 1692. more dangerous buboes (bubones), and some ex- hibited both symptoms.180 The plague epidemic in Črnomelj was also the first and the last one on which there are known various details, sanitary measures, reactions in the wider area, as well as minute specifi- cations of infected and deceased persons, all worthy of a thorough discussion that will be provided below. The developments that took place in the town and its surroundings from when the plague broke out and reached its peak are poorly documented. Reports, mainly referring to sanitary measures, only began to proliferate once the disease started to abate, especially during the ensuing weeks. Therefore, noth- ing is even known about when precisely the disease erupted and when it reached its climax; it must have been no later than December 1691 and probably even a month or so before that. In November, for example, the plague began to recede in the Croatian town of Plaški, where the last patient died on De- cember 12th. Soon afterward, a physician from Novo Mesto, Dr. Janez Krstnik Novak, who had fulfilled his task there, reported to the Carniolan provincial estates from the mansion Pobrežje ob Kolpi. He af- firmed that there was no plague (alda khein Pest ge- wesen) in Gradac, the Metlika area, and the provin- cial court of Podbrežje, even though some of his rare patients indeed had died, including the wife and son of Baron Gusič, a chaplain, and a Turkish girl (a spoil of war) as the first victim of the plague. At the time of reporting, Novak had three patients in his care, whereas everyone inside and outside Gradac and in Podbrežje had completely recovered. Therefore, he requested to be released without further quarantine requirements.181 The provincial estates’ delegation, of course, re- jected his request, as it coincided with the outbreak of the real plague in Črnomelj and its surround- ing area. The provincial authorities appointed as the plague commissioner Baron Janez Sigmund Geyman, the commander of the commandery of Metlika-Črnomelj, who resided in Metlika and paid occasional inspection visits to the infected Črnomelj. The town and the infected villages were placed under military guard, deployed specifically for this purpose, and the affected area was in the care of a physician and a healer-surgeon stationed in the commissioner’s house in the commandery of Metlika.182 Strict meas- ures aimed at preventing the spread of the disease soon proved to be impractical, albeit certainly neces- 180 Ibid., pp. 593–595, ad February 25th, 1692.—The combined summary list of names states twenty-seven individuals with carbuncles and eighty with buboes, altogether 107 recov- ered patients. At the end, the list only provides the sum of eighty-seven persons, which suggests that twenty patients exhibited both symptoms. 181 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 549, fasc. 311, pp. 1721–1722, s. d. (after December 12th, 1691). 182 Ibid., carton 548, fasc. 311, p. 317, January 21st, 1692. 167 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 sary to ensure the safety of the province. The plague commissioner and the physician Andrej Koppeniag- er had their hands full with Črnomelj’a inhabitants, who refused to comply with the ban on passing to and from the town. Once frozen in the winter, the Lahinja and Dobličica streams encircling the town from three sides made for an easy exit, forcing the guards to patrol the waterways at night. The plague commissioner, commander Geyman, described the guards as “malicious people” who were in cahoots with the “rebels from Črnomelj,” and he even beat their corporal.183 At Geyman’s behest, the physician Koppeniager and the healer Janez Jakob Ubec im- prisoned the agitators of “crimes committed by the opposition.” After a few were released, they snuck past the guards at night and visited their vineyards in the infected villages. On their return to the town, they shot at and dispersed the guards at Rožanc, who had spotted them and tried to stop them.184 183 Ibid., pp. 47–49, January 6th, 1692. 184 Ibid., p. 235, January 3rd, 1692. All this transpired in the last days of 1691 or the first days of the next year, when the plague lost its vigor and the inhabitants of Črnomelj could breathe a sigh of relief. Between the New Year’s Day and the Epiphany, another five persons died in the town’s suburbs and lazaretto, respectively, and one in the village of Tušev Dol.185 The last plague victim in Črnomelj, an old woman, died on Janu- ary 11th, 1692, after which no deaths or new infec- tions were recorded. Ten days later, all affected areas only registered nine infections, four in the suburbs of Črnomelj. The main task that now lay before the commissioner Geyman was to provide clothes for about a hundred recovered patients, whose personal items had been burned for safety reasons, along with the possessions of the deceased. The provincial es- tates promised the commissioner to offer their as- sistance by ensuring means necessary to buy cloth for new clothes. The administrator of the seigniory Poljane ob Kolpi tried to benefit from the misfor- 185 Ibid., pp. 239–240, January 6th, 1692. Črnomelj according to Valvasor, ten years before the plague of 1691; in the center of the town stands the parish Church of St. Peter and Paul with the adjacent cemetery where the plague victims were buried. 168 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 tune by offering the commander cloth and linen at an exorbitant price.186 The provincial estates gave Geyman 300 gulden in German currency to dress the poor, instructed him to buy cloth at a most fa- vorable price, and advised the better-off townsmen and serfs to purchase clothes at their own expense.187 On another visit to Črnomelj on February 1st, the plague commissioner ordered that the graves be cov- ered with high mounds of earth, despite the cold, to prevent the foul smell coming out and the evil pesti- lence from spreading further. As all the infected had by then recovered, he notified the provincial estates that he needed new clothes for ninety-one convales- cent and destitute patients, whose names were stated on the physician’s list. However, closed passages to other parts of the province and an increasing scarcity resulted in a serious shortage of supply. According to the pro-forma invoice—6 gulden and 15 kreuzer for all clothes items per person—the 300 gulden would merely suffice for forty-eight persons, leaving the re- maining forty-three with nothing. From this group the commissioner excluded those who could afford to buy their own clothes and included in it the pa- tients’ family members, even though they remained healthy in infected households. Finally, he requested the provincial estates for an immediate imposition of quarantine and, on its termination, enable the earliest possible reopening of passages to remedy the damage that the closure had caused to the entire province.188 Three days later, on February 7th, the provin- cial authorities announced that they had no qualms about imposing quarantine for forty days, after which they would decide whether the passages could be reopened or another, shorter quarantine should be imposed. In the meantime, the plague commis- sioner was instructed to buy the cloth and linen to dress ninety-one persons and submit a specification based on which he would receive reimbursement from the office of the provincial main recipient.189 The plague commissioner had plenty of work in those days. He rode to Črnomelj twice or three times weekly and made sure that the production of clothes ran smoothly; he ordered that all infected houses be emptied out and smoked a few times daily, and that the infected graves be heaped over with high mounds.190 A month later, on March 3rd, 1692, the provincial vidame reported to the government in Graz that the infected persons had completed the first of three mandatory quarantines. The second one would commence on March 10th, followed by the third and the shortest one. After the first quarantine, the old clothes were burned under the supervision 186 Ibid., pp. 315–316, January 21st, 1692. 187 Ibid., p. 330, January 23rd, 1692. 188 Ibid., pp. 381–384, February 4th, 1692; pp. 387–390, Specifi- cation etc. 189 Ibid., pp. 407–410, February 7th, 1692. 190 Ibid., pp. 523–527, February 11th, 1692. of the plague commissioner, and the new ones were distributed among the patients with the help of the provincial estates. Meanwhile, the common burial ground had been raised above its surroundings and protected with high wooden planks to prevent peo- ple and animals from entering. With the approach- ing spring, when the soil begins to open, the burial site was to be further covered with a thick layer of lime.191 At the end of March, a special lime kiln was set up to extract the critically needed lime and use it freshly burned to cover the graves.192 However, there were two kinds of graves and two different burial locations, with the cemetery adjacent to the parish church in the town’s center also caus- ing controversies later. Still a year after the mandate of plague commissioner was suspended, Baron Gey- man, the commander of the Metlika-Črnomelj com- mandery of the Teutonic Knights, embroiled himself in a dispute with the inhabitants of Črnomelj by de- priving them of their right to use the town cemetery at the parish Church of St. Peter and Paul, where they had buried their dead during the plague. In their undated complaint to the provincial command- er in Ljubljana, the inhabitants of Črnomelj referred to the plague as “a purported contagious disease” (in der vermeindten contagion khrankheit) and stated that they had only buried twelve children in the ceme- tery and the rest in a separate location outside the town, even though burials in Karlovac and elsewhere continued to take place in cemeteries. They believed that the commander Geyman only wanted to harm them out of spite, as he had done before, and bur- den them with high legal expenses. In his response, the commander Geyman reported to the provincial commander that Črnomelj had been struck by the real plague (würkliche pest) and that more than thirty people had in fact been buried at the parish church. He had instructed its inhabitants to move the burials to the succursal Church of St. Mary in the village of Vojna Vas, but they would not hear of it and insisted on burying their dead in the town. All three provin- cial authorities—the provincial governor, the vidame, and the provincial estates’ delegation office—replied to his report two days later by ordering the town judge and council of Črnomelj to use the cemetery in Vojna Vas situated on the outer boundary of the town. By digging new graves at the parish church, they might uncover the bodies of plague victims and jeopardize the safety of the entire province.193 The inhabitants of Črnomelj undoubtedly bowed down to the order, which remained in force for as long as the possibility of another outbreak of the epidemic was likely. Burials eventually resumed at the parish 191 Ibid., carton 687, fasc. 393, March 3rd, 1692. 192 Ibid., carton 548, fasc. 311, March 24th, 1692. 193 Ibid., carton 550, fasc. 311a, pp. 691–704, May 17th, 1693, May 19th, 1693, s. d. 169 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 church in the town center and continued to take place there until 1802.194 Equally stringent preventive measures were ap- plied to the living. On March 10th, 1692, after no news about the plague arrived even from Croatia, the commander Geyman requested the provincial estates to withdraw the physician Koppeniager, the witch doctor, and the thirteen plague guards.195 Two days later, immediately on receiving his letter, the provin- cial estates’ delegates ordered him to find a suitable accommodation for the guards at Semič and place them under additional quarantine for fourteen days. The plague commissioner himself was to pass the quarantine at his residence, Commandery in Met- lika, where he stayed for the next two weeks in the company of the physician and the witch doctor. At the same time, the authorities informed him that the plague in Karlovac had ended, that the guards had been removed from the border with Croatia, and that border crossings had been reopened.196 Meanwhile, quarantine was still in place in Črnomelj itself, which understandably put an additional strain on the town. On March 16th, 1692, the commander sent a request to allow the town dwellers to perform their spring work in the fields and vineyards. The provincial es- tates consented and even granted them permission to trade with their neighbors but prohibited them from leaving the town. On Geyman’s reiterated request to allow for unhindered movement of the town dwell- ers, who were mostly potters and waggonwrights and would run out of food in less than fourteen days, the estates replied on March 27th that the passages to- ward Črnomelj and Karlovac would open in eight days.197 This eventually happened on April 9th. The commander also managed to persuade the provincial estates’ delegates to lift the quarantine for Dr. Kop- 194 Podlogar, Kronika mesta Črnomlja, p. 68. 195 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 548, fasc. 311, pp. 647–648 and 675–678, March 10th, 1692. 196 Ibid., p. 679, March 12th, 1692. 197 Ibid., pp. 683–686; March 20th, 1692; pp. 691–692, March 24th, 1692; pp. 739–740, March 27th, 1692. peniager, the witch doctor, and Dr. Novak from Novo Mesto,198 who had joined the former two after pass- ing the initial stage of quarantine at the Podbrežje mansion.199 Let us now turn to the central issue of this discus- sion, that is, the demographic impact of the plague in Črnomelj. Had the list of the deceased not been preserved, leaving historians with the above-stated numbers of twelve and more than thirty inhabitants of Črnomelj buried at the parish church, the total number of all plague victims in this White Carniolan town would have been estimated at a little over thir- ty. Yet the actual death count was at least a few times higher, and it reached a three-digit figure. Accord- ing to the list of plague victims (in der Laidigen Con- tagion abgestorbenen) that the plague commissioner Geyman sent to the provincial estates on February 25th, 1692, the area of Črnomelj—the town, includ- ing its suburbs and seven villages mostly located west of Črnomelj—counted as many as 252 deaths, more than half in the town of Črnomelj and its suburbs, i.e., 139 or 55.2 %.200 The list of deaths in Črnomelj is summarized in the table below, dividing the deceased into men, women, and children. The high percentage of adults among all victims particularly stands out, but less so among the deceased men, who represented 23.7 % in the town and its suburbs and 20.4 % in the seven villages. Significantly larger disparities are shown in women and children. Whereas the share of village women amounted to slightly over one-fifth (22.1 %), it was higher than one-third among townswomen (33.8 %). The difference between the dying adult and children population becomes especially obvious in the following ratio: children represented as much as 198 Ibid., pp. 769–770, March 31st, 1692, April 7th, 1692, April 9th, 1692. 199 Ibid., p. 331, January 23rd, 1692, pp. 371–372, January 31st, 1692. 200 Ibid., pp. 585–588, February 25th, 1692; pp. 589–592, ad Fe- bruary 25th, 1692, Verzaichnuß der in der Laidigen Conta- gion abgestorbenen. A list of all the deceased in the wider area of Črnomelj Place Total death toll Deceased men Deceased women Deceased children Families with deceased members Completely extinct households Town of Črnomelj 47 10 16 21 21 0 Suburbs of Črnomlja 92 23 31 38 36 3 Total Črnomelj 139 33 47 59 57 3 Tušev Dol 37 6 7 24 11 2 Talčji Vrh 32 9 7 16 9 0 Otovec 24 5 7 12 7 1 Naklo pri Sv. Jakobu 5 1 1 3 1 0 Sela 6 1 1 4 1 0 Svibnik 4 0 1 3 1 0 Butoraj 5 1 1 3 1 0 Total 252 56 72 124 88 6 170 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 A list of plague victims in Črnomelj, dated February 25th, 1692. 171 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 57.5 % of all victims in the villages and no more than 42.4 % in the town and its suburbs. Interestingly, the difference between the town and its suburbs ex- pressed in percentage is insignificant. For example, adults represented 55.3 % of all the deceased in the town center and 58.7 % in the suburbs outside the town walls. The following conclusion, which is also impor- tant for assessing the demographic impact elsewhere, concerns the number of completely extinct house- holds. The list specifically states six such houses (das haus ganz ausgestorben or völlig abgestorben), three in the suburbs and three in the nearby villages—a figure fairly consistent with the proportional divi- sion of the deceased between the town of Črnomelj and the surrounding countryside. Considering the total number of houses from which plague-infected corpses were taken (fifty-seven), the number of those that had become completely depopulated is surpris- ingly low. The share of extinct households among all households that witnessed death in Črnomelj represents merely 5.2 % and the percentage of their deceased members (ten) is slightly higher (7.2 %). In addition, the three extinct households in the suburbs were numerically small, composed of four at members at most. The Rupe family had become extinct with the deaths of a husband, a wife, and the mother of one spouse; the Babner family had lost a husband, a wife, and a child; and the four-mem- ber Jakša family had seen the departure of a mar- ried couple with two children. The share of extinct households among all households with deceased members was also strikingly low in the countryside, where it amounted to 9.7 %, with their fifteen de- ceased members representing 13.3 % of all plague victims in the rural area. Given the above, the plague was by no means a se- lective agent of death that killed certain families with The deceased in Črnomelj Number of deceased persons / Number of families 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 Persons 10 Persons Town of Črnomelj 8 8 1 1 2 1 Suburbs of Črnomlja 13 8 6 6 1 1 1 Total Črnomelj 21 (36,8 %) 16 (28,1 %) 7 (12,3 %) 7 (12,3 %) 3 (5,3 %) 2 (3,5 %) 1 (1,8 %) The recovered according to the list, dated February 4th, 1692 Place Total recoveries Recovered men Recovered women Recovered children Number of households with recovered members Town of Črnomelj 3 0 3 0 2 Suburbs of Črnomlja 43 15 18 10 21 Total Črnomelj 46 15 21 10 23 Pri Sv. Nikolaju 2 2 0 0 2 Tušev Dol 16 3 7 6 8 Talčji Vrh 15 3 7 5 8 Otovec 8 1 2 5 8 Sela 1 0 0 1 1 Svibnik 3 1 1 1 1 Butoraj 1 0 0 1 1 Total 92 25 38 29 52 Number of recovered persons according to the list of February 25th, 1692 Sum of recovered persons from both lists Place Recovered with carbuncles Recovered with buboes Total recovered persons Number of families with recovered members Town of Črnomelj – – 3 2 Outlaying part of Črnomelj 13 38 74 38 Total Črnomelj 13 38 77 40 Tušev Dol 6 18 33 12 Talčji Vrh 6 15 19 11 Otovec 2 4 9 10 Sela 0 1 2 2 Svibnik 0 2 2 1 Butoraj 0 2 4 2 Total 27 80 146 78 172 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 a surgical precision and left others entirely intact. To the contrary, the number of infected homes was higher than those that had been left abandoned at the end of the epidemic. As is evident from the table below, nearly two-thirds of households (64.9 %) with registered deaths had been bereft of no more than one or two members. Slightly more than one-third of households (36.8 %) had lost only one member and just over one-third (10.5 %) five or more, without any becoming extinct. One of the households with six deceased members had lost both parents and four children and the other a married couple with three children and a farmhand. The house with the highest number of plague-infected corpses (ten), home to an extended family of Jurij Črnugel, consigned to the death register the master of the house, his three sons, two women, and four children. Two lists shed further light on the dimensions of the plague in Črnomelj. The first, compiled on Feb- ruary 4th, 1692, presents the recovered inhabitants by sex and the other, final list, produced on February 25th, provides an overview by symptoms—carbun- cles and buboes.201 Neither appears to be complete, with the second list featuring only a minor part of names contained in the first one and vice versa. This required a detailed analysis of personal names and surnames, where another problem presented itself: in each family, only one person was usually indicated by the full name. On the first list, other family members are simply marked as children, women, sons, farm- hands, and so on, and the more recent list merely states their total number. The final list that the plague commissioner Baron Geyman sent to the provincial estates on Febru- ary 25th, 1692, classifies the recovered individuals by symptoms. Rather than distinguish between the town and its suburbs, it combines them under the common name “Bey der Statt Tschernembl.” The ta- ble below therefore presents the numerical data from the more recent list on its left and an aggregate of the recovered from both lists on its right after subtracting individuals or families that appear on both lists. The thus obtained number of the deceased inhabitants of Črnomelj is appreciably higher (seventy-seven) than that set forth by the first list (forty-six). However, the final sum cannot be divided between the town and the suburbs because no such distinction is made on the final list. The figures above cover all the dimensions of the epidemic. Given the total of 252 deaths, the 146 re- covered persons in the town, the suburbs, and the seven villages represent a strikingly low share at slightly over one-third (36.7 %) of altogether 398 infected persons, suggesting that two out of three 201 Ibid., pp. 387–390, ad February 4th, 1692; pp. 593–596, ad February 25th, 1692. infected persons were condemned to certain death. Whereas the question of what symptoms proved fatal remains unanswered, it is known, at least for most recovered individuals, who was diagnosed with buboes, the symptoms of the bubonic plague (thir- teen), and who with carbuncles (thirty-eight). For the town of Črnomelj and its suburbs, the number of all deceased and recovered amounts to 216, with seventy-seven surviving patients representing a share almost equal to that of the infected (35.6 %) for the entire area. Finally, it also seems reasonable to establish how many families in Črnomelj were affected by the plague or, rather, how many families experienced in- fections or deaths during the plague and what share of the total population was made up by the infected. The results of comparing all three lists are under- standably somewhat relative, given that families can- not be determined as complete units based on the same surname alone. There are altogether twenty ex- amples where the surname and location (the town, the suburbs) provide satisfactory evidence to confirm that we are dealing with one and the same family. No more than that many families saw a part of their members die and the other part recover. Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that the plague visited at least seventy-seven families or homes but certainly not more than ninety-seven. Fifty-seven families experienced death and forty saw their members re- cover, with twenty cases at most involving one and the same family. As already noted, no censuses of houses or house- holders exist for Črnomelj until the mid-eighteenth century that would also allow for a tentative estimate of the entire population. The Theresian Cadaster of 1752 specifies 104 houses, including the castle, that is, seventy-four in the town itself and thirty in the suburbs,202 which amounts to about 572, using the coefficient of 5.5 persons per household. Before that, Črnomelj—like any other Lower Carniolan town— boasted a higher number of populated houses and inhabitants. In 1744, the town leadership specified the existence of 117 homes in the period prior to the recent fire (1740) and stressed that many houses in the suburbs had been lost forever to the fires between 1660 and 1730.203 This can only be verified with the sweeping evaluation by the vidame’s commission in 1573 that the town counted about a hundred houses, excluding those owned by noblemen and members 202 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 243, no. 6, August 10th, 1752. 203 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–4, s. d. (Berichts copia); lit. T II–5, May 22nd, 1744, s. d. (1744, Specification).—There were twenty-one populat- ed houses in the suburbs; the fire of 1740 left fifteen houses abandoned within the town walls, and seven house-lots had already been abandoned for about fifty years. The suburbs also counted sixteen burnt and abandoned houses. 173 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 of the provincial estates.204 180 years later, in 1752, only eighty houses fell under the town’s jurisdiction, fifty in the town itself and thirty in its suburbs.205 Compared to the mid-eighteenth century, the years leading up to the plague of 1691–1692 must have seen a greater number of houses and a denser population, especially outside the town walls. Much can be gathered from the fact that in 1752 the sub- urbs counted no more than thirty houses, whereas the list of plague-related deaths there refers to de- ceased members of thirty-six families and recovered individuals from thirty-eight households, yielding about forty-six affected homes according to the name analysis. Considering, for example, that there were at least 117 populated homes before the plague as well as presumably before 1740, the population of Črnomelj in 1691 must have been about 650. The 216 infected persons would thus account for about one-third of the total population, the 139 deceased over one-fifth, and the at least seventy-seven affected houses nearly two-thirds of the existing homes. The fifty-seven households with corpses also lead to a chilling conclusion that the death knocked on every other door in Črnomelj. In the town itself, it visited twenty-one families, decimating about one-quarter of households, and in the suburbs, it practically left no house intact. By comparison, Gorizia registered 487 corpses during the plague of 1682 or about one- eighth of the total population of between 3,500 and four thousand people.206 As demonstrated by contemporary specifications, the plague in Črnomelj was by no means an innocent event. In this light, it is also necessary to understand a lapidary description of the epidemic penned by the town leadership fifty years later. Explaining the rea- sons for the town’s abandonment and destitution in their report to the vidame in 1744, Črnomelj’s town fathers also stated that he must remember how the town had been left completely extinct (ganz abgestor- ben) and abandoned (verwiestet) during the plague in 1691.207 On the margins of the plague in Črnomelj, this last wave of the death-dealing pestilence in the sev- enteenth-century Carniola, let us finally dedicate a few words to the developments in the nearby area, which suffered serious indirect impacts of the anti- plague measures. The province lived in fear, the move- ment of people and goods was constrained, and the Carniolan borders were sealed and guarded. Much 204 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–4, Berichts copia.—Archduke Karl issued the decree concerning the commission on October 13th, 1573 (StLA, I.Ö. HK-Rep. 1573, fol. 411). 205 SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 243, no. 6, August 10th, 1752. 206 Jelinčič, Črna smrt v Gorici, p. 119. Cf. Waltritsch, Prvi goriški kronist, pp. 194 f. 207 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 279, fasc. 142, lit. T II–5, May 22nd, 1744. like during previous epidemics, areas not directly af- fected by the ravages of the plague defied the im- practical and economically harmful restrictions with even greater tenacity. Thus, the inhabitants of Novo Mesto put up an open resistance by holding their annual fair and permitting entrance to suspicious Croats without a health certificate. When this came to its knowledge on September 3rd, 1691, the Inner Austrian government in Graz called on the Carni- olan vidame to immediately depose the town judge and organize an early election, which was eventually not held. The regular judicial election was just around the corner, in which the current town judge failed to win retention precisely due to his disobedience, and the inhabitants of Novo Mesto elected another fel- low townsman as their leader.208 The restrictions on the movement of people and goods also sparked several riots around Novo Mesto and across wider Lower Carniola. In January 1692, the guards at Čatež confiscated a wagon of honey, the property of a merchant Eder from Ljubljana, be- cause the drivers, supposedly coming from Croatia, failed to present their “fedes.” The guards also seized an ox-wagon carrying hides, leather soles, bacon, and pork, transported from Croatia by two men from Ribnica, who escaped to the hills while their confis- cated goods were burned in the village of Mraševo.209 The provincial estates’ delegates issued a warrant for their arrest and ordered the seigniory of Ribnica to publicly threaten with punishment any individual attempting to travel to Croatia and other infected areas.210 At about the same time, the guards at Čatež prohibited passage to a few people who had been in contact with the Uskoks (mit dennen Balachen) and sent them back “to Wallachia” (in die Balachey). The authorities confiscated the house of some Uskok (Besiakh) in the hills above Kostanjevica and posted two guards in front of it at his expense for having been in constant contact with the Uskoks and offered them lodging. The permanent guard garrison on the Gorjanci Mountains struggled in the dead of win- ter; the seigniories of Kostanjevica, Šrajbarski turn, Prežek, and Pleterje had refused to provide them with guardhouses and wood supply,211 which earned them a good scolding from the provincial estates.212 These were even more alarmed by the news about two men having made their way deep into Carniola from Croatia. A baker from Sisak first tried to enter the province legally on the Styrian-Carniolan border at Brežice and, failing, then crossed the Sava at Mok- ronog and arrived in Kranj, where he had a house 208 Ibid., carton 257, fasc. 133, lit. R III–1, September 3rd, 1691, November 19th, 1691. 209 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 548, fasc. 311, pp. 309–310, January 21st, 1692. 210 Ibid., pp. 343–344, January 23rd, 1692. 211 Ibid., p. 310, January 21st, 1692. 212 Ibid., pp. 345–346, January 23rd, 1692. 174 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 and a family. A man going by the name of Bach, who was supposedly from around Ribnica, bought horses in the Croatian town of Klanjac and then reached Carniola using byways.213 The provincial estates or- dered the town of Kranj and the Ribnica seigniory to investigate and apprehend both men as a warning to other lawbreakers.214 These and similar measures seem to have borne fruit. The inhabitants of Novo Mesto, who could still bypass the prohibition on fairs in the previous sum- mer, now became more cautious than ever. On Feb- ruary 26th, 1692, long after the plague in Črnomelj had passed, they denied entrance to an assistant of the town’s merchant Jakše,215 even though the boy showed them his “fede,” issued two days earlier in Metlika and demonstrating that he had spent three months there (by force of circumstances) and that the senior plague commissioner gave him the per- mission to leave.216 As the leadership of Novo Mesto remained unyielding, the boy ultimately negoti- ated a signature from the commissioner Mordax and entered the town without the knowledge of the town fathers. The issuer of his health certificate from Metlika did the same for another townsman of Novo Mesto by sending him on his way without a proper “fede.”217 The inhabitants of Novo Mesto complained to the provincial estates’ delegates, who reassured them that the danger had passed and that the provincial borders with Croatia would reopen soon. Nevertheless, they called on the town judge and council to instruct their townsmen to avoid any contact with Croats until a proper authorization was issued.218 The final blows of plague epidemics in the early eighteenth century The eighteenth century was the last one in which the plague visited the Slovenian provinces. It ran particularly rampant between 1711 and 1716, and then appeared in sporadic incidences here and there, but continued to sow fear over the following dec- ades by repeatedly sweeping across the neighboring provinces in the east and southeast, reaching all the way to the Slovenian ethnic borders. When in the early 1701, for example, the disease was brought to the Croatian town of Gradiška from the European part of Turkey, the Carniolan authorities closed all borders and prohibited all fairs to prevent the disease from spreading into the province. Facing the greatest threat was again the border province of White Car- niola, where the memory was still vivid of the devas- 213 Ibid., p. 311, January 21st, 1692. 214 Ibid., pp. 341–342, January 23rd, 1692. 215 Ibid., p. 611, February 26th, 1692. 216 Ibid., p. 579, February 24th, 1692. 217 Ibid., p. 611, February 26th, 1692. 218 Ibid., pp. 641–644, February 28th, 1692. tating plague from ten years before. For “the territory of Metlika and Črnomelj,” the Carniolan provincial estates appointed the plague commissioner Franc Karl von Gusič, who reinforced the guards on the Kolpa to stop the disease from crossing the border with Croatia.219 The fear of contagion was considerable and, like in the face of similar threats, further exacerbated by false reports drawn up for one reason or another. On April 2nd, 1701, for example, all three provin- cial authorities—the governor, the vidame, and the estates’ delegation office—ordered Novo Mesto’s town judge and council to throw a town dweller by the name Strupi in the tower for fourteen days for illegally crossing the border on his way to Croatia. The town authorities were reprimanded for allow- ing him to return to Novo Mesto after he traveled through Karlovac to attend a fair in Zagreb and re- turned by the same route. The imprisoned Strupi ap- pealed to the provincial estates to release him and permit him to return to Karlovac. He emphatically denied being a native of Novo Mesto and insisted that he was a merchant from Karlovac. He admit- ted having traveled to the fair in Zagreb with other merchants from Karlovac but maintained that they had not once been stopped to show their permits. Strupi claimed to have had absolutely no knowledge about the prohibition on border crossing and that he had only come to Novo Mesto to visit his parents. Immediately afterward, on April 12th, the plague in Gradiška had passed, and the provincial governor withdrew all guards from the border.220 There are no reports on epidemics in Slovenian territory for the ensuing years, even though the plague, smallpox, and other contagious diseases raged across many European lands, especially the Balkans, Hungary, and Poland. The Black Death inched its way unrelentingly toward the heart of Europe. Be- tween 1708 and 1716, it frequently visited Slovenian territory on the heels or in the company of many other natural disasters. Livestock diseases were par- ticularly rampant in Carniola, and all Austrian prov- inces suffered for years from smallpox epidemics.221 In 1710, the Black Death reached the doorstep of the Slovenian provinces from three sides—the east, the north, and the south. With many areas in Hun- gary, Croatia, and Venetia infected, the government sealed and guarded all provincial borders. The magis- trates of all major towns were tasked with setting up contumacy facilities and lazarettos. However, even in 1710, after the government in Graz appointed two “central contagion deputations” in Graz and Klagen- furt, people defied rigorous measures and continued 219 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 129. 220 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 687, fasc. 393, March 3rd, 1701, April 2nd, 1701. 221 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 129. 175 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 to frequent the infected areas, believing it to be not the real (Asian) plague but an ordinary febrile dis- ease. Indeed, unlike in the past when plague epidem- ics usually broke out suddenly and violently, death now came in an entirely different form. Patients ex- hibited no conspicuous and characteristic signs of the plague. The symptoms only manifested postmor- tem, and the course of the disease took longer, with patients dying a week or two after infection.222 Sources of local provenance shed little light on the safety measures in Lower Carniolan towns dur- ing that period. The chronicle of the Capuchin Or- der in Krško from 1757 mentions the plague twice: in 1709, when the disease ravaged Hungary and guards were set up at the town gates, and in 1712, when entrance into Krško was prohibited without a health certificate at the behest of the provincial es- tates. That year, death reaped its harvest in Hungary and in the neighboring Styria, separated from Krško only by the Sava.223 Three years later, Carniola was hit for the last time by what sources designate as the plague of 1715. The disease spread from Hungary to Slovenian Hills as early as 1710–1712 and settled in Ptuj for two years until 1714. In 1714 and 1715, it was brought from Lower Austria to Upper Styria, whence it reached the area of Maribor and Celje. In the summer of 1715, it spread from Styria to Carinthia, where it remained until mid-1716 and ultimately reached Carniola in mid-1715. By then, Carniola had already had preventive measures and a range of prohibitions in place for two years or, rather, since the first deaths had been recorded in the neighboring lands. How- ever, despite all safety precautions, no later than the spring of 1715, the “plague” reached Lower Carniola, particularly the areas around Stična, Novo Mesto, and Šentrupert, while Ljubljana had since the New Year’s Day been afflicted by febrile diseases.224 Although contemporary reports again shed little light on the increased mortality in Lower Carniola, they can be directly confirmed with the data from a few preserved death registers, which had by then been undertaken by many parishes across the prov- ince. The cause of death was still rarely stated in that period and—as shown on Ljubljana’s example—the notion of the plague was a conflation of several dif- ferent diseases. With respect to towns, the data on the deceased are solely available for Višnja Gora, Kočevje, and partly Novo Mesto. The only market towns for which such registers have been preserved are Žužemberk and Litija. 222 Ibid., p. 130. 223 Kapucinski samostan Krško, Archivum loci Ppff. capucino- rum Gurkfeldi erectum anno Domini MDCCLVII, pp. 45 and 47.—Cf. Benedik, Kralj, Kapucini na Slovenskem, pp. 460, 462. 224 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 130–132. Before turning to records kept by Lower Car- niolan parishes, let us look at the developments that took place in Ljubljana and the data contained in its civil registers. As always, there was never a lack of ex- aggerations, which only grew bigger with geographi- cal distance. In May 1715, for instance, the impe- rial court asked the Carniolan provincial estates to confirm whether between twenty and thirty people indeed died every day in Ljubljana and whether their sudden deaths were indeed due to buboes leaving many unburied corpses lying on the streets.225 Lju- bljana’s physicians submitted a report debunking this disinformation. Whereas most infected patients had recovered after receiving treatment, it was impossible to help so many coming to the city to escape hunger in the countryside. Two or three individuals at most had admittedly collapsed in the street—however, not from the disease but starvation. Besides, the city had set up a lazaretto where patients were treated by phy- sicians and witch doctors.226 Seven physicians con- firmed the presence of febrile diseases since January and assured that most patients had recovered after receiving proper medicines. Fortunately, no patient had exhibited buboes and only a few had developed real plague bumps. Nor did death come suddenly, but it most often lingered for one or up to two weeks.227 Altogether four hundred patients were admitted to the lazaretto, thirty-nine of whom had died by mid- May. The physician Janez Leopold Raditsch also confirmed that, barring carbuncles and buboes, the symptoms were identical to those he had seen on pa- tients in Vienna and Prague in 1713–1714 and pro- posed that the graves at the Šentpeter cemetery be dug deeper and covered with lime to prevent hazard- ous decomposition of corpses in summer.228 Eloquent witnesses to mortality in Ljubljana are the registers of death kept by the cathedral parish of St. Nicholas and the suburban parish of St. Pe- ter. In 1714, the cathedral parish buried 124 persons, and this number rose to 231 or by 71.7 % in 1715. 125 people died between March and June, with the highest mortality recorded in April (thirty-six) and May (forty-one).229 In the suburban-rural parish of Šentpeter, which covered a much vaster territory, the mass dying started as early as the autumn of 1714, in no small part also due to poor harvests and hunger. After 339 burials were entered in the parish death register in 1713, this number climbed to 634 the following year and reached no less than 951 in the plague year of 1715 or 2.8 times more than two years 225 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 688, fasc. 393, May 13th, 1715. 226 Ibid., May 20th, 1715. 227 Ibid., May 18th, 1715. 228 Ibid., s. d., presented on May 22nd, 1715. 229 NŠAL, ŽA Ljubljana—Sv. Nikolaj, Matične knjige, M 1658–1735. 176 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 earlier. As the city itself, the parish witnessed a surge in deaths in April (134) and May (201). Already in March 1714, there were reports of four soldiers dy- ing in the lazaretto (in lazareth), where the death count started to mount on April 28th, 1715. The number of deaths in the lazaretto peaked in May and June, with only a few deceased being listed by the full name among a host of anonymous deaths. The lazaretto frequently reported five deaths per day, six unidentified victims on May 20th, and a record-high number of seven beggars on June 16th. The last death in the lazaretto was recorded on September 5th. The total number of the deceased in 1715 amounted to a hundred, with fifty-seven marked as beggars. A massive death toll, especially among beggars, was also observed outside the lazaretto, resulting in up to eight funerals held several times per day.230 Due to the lack of such sources for Lower Car- niola, the figures and reports from Ljubljana serve as a useful starting point for drawing comparisons with the numbers of deaths stated in death registers of the five Lower Carniolan parishes. All civil reg- isters kept by the parishes of Novo Mesto–chapter, Višnja Gora, Kočevje, Žužemberk, and Šmartno pri Litiji reveal an evident increase in deaths. Novo Mesto probably suffered the most with the densest population and the highest mortality in both the ab- solute number and the percentage of deceased per total parish population. As stated on the first page of the oldest death register, the small Novo Mesto town parish, covering the area inside the town walls, counted 331 deaths and burials in 1715 alone.231 Unfortunately, only this summary data is available rather than records of all buried victims, and it was not until July 5th, when the mass dying started, that the provost Jurij Franc Ksaver de Marotti instructed his priest to keep a register of deaths and enter the names of everyone who died in the town and its sur- roundings in a specified form. The record-keeping started the next day; however, with at least one sheet missing, consecutive entries are only available for the period from February 1716 onward.232 Although the number of 331 buried is not verifiable, it is highly probable. According to the death registers from oth- er parishes, a major wave of deaths passed through Lower Carniola in spring and (merely) thirty-four deaths were recorded in the two months of summer. What should also be borne in mind is that not all victims buried here were natives of Novo Mesto. The deaths of foreigners should be subtracted from the 230 NŠAL, ŽA Ljubljana—Sv. Peter, Matične knjige, M 1690– 1736, M 1715–1743. 231 KANM, carton 58, M/1 1704–1728: “Anno 1715—In D(o- mi)no obierunt provisi sacramentis, ac tumulati illor(um) 331.” 232 Only two sheets have been preserved for 1715, recording the deaths of thirty-four individuals: eighteen in July, twelve in August, and four in September. high total number and, by analogy with Ljubljana, consideration should also be given to the increased number of beggars and troops, who had already rep- resented an above-average share among the thirty- four deceased between July and September 1715.233 Compared to the summary indication in the same death register on 110 deceased in 1705 (hic sepulti), the number of deaths almost tripled in 1715. How- ever, if one takes an annual average of 47.8 deceased for the ensuing ten-year period (1716–1725), the number of buried victims in the epidemic year was nearly six times higher. What share, then, of Novo Mesto’s population can be attributed to the 331 deceased, only a fraction of whom was made up by those who had not been affected by the epidemic and hunger? Given that in 1754, the town counted 1,485 inhabitants and only one house under the town’s jurisdiction less than in 1726 (249), it seems safe to assume that the demo- graphic situation in the early eighteenth century was not much different. In the town with less than 1,500 inhabitants, the 331 deaths of town dwellers and for- eigners who had come to the town to find relief from their afflictions could translate into a good fifth of deceased, which comes very close to the estimated percentage in Črnomelj during the plague of 1691– 1692. That same year, the death was equally remorse- less in Kočevje. The parish of Kočevje recorded the deaths of 246 persons, stating only 145 individu- ally. In addition, the priests buried eighty-two im- poverished adults and children without payment of surplice fees but neglected to register the burials of nineteen children. The entries in the death register point to an extraordinary situation seen in no other year than 1715. No summary data on unlisted burials can be found in other death registers kept from 1699 onward, even though the Kočevje area confronted various epidemics before and after. No other year in the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries probably witnessed as many deaths as 1715. Given the annual average of 93.8 deaths in the ten-year period 1705– 1714, the number of deaths in 1715 increased by 262 %. However, among the 145 deceased individu- als listed by their names, only twenty-three can be attributed to the town of Kočevje itself, which does not signify a substantial increase from previous years, with the ten-year average for 1705–1714 amounting to 13.1. On the other hand, the town may have also contributed its share toward the 101 unidentified decedents, suggesting that the number of deceased town dwellers could be much higher.234 233 Among the thirty-four buried persons were five beggars, three foreigners, and two soldiers, altogether nine non-locals, among them six unidentified and marked as N or N. N. 234 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1669–1724. 177 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 Precise data on the deceased are also provided in the death register of the parish of Višnja Gora.235 In 1715, the parish registered the deaths of altogether 115 individuals, including fifty-two or nearly a half classified as children and adolescents. As many as fif- ty-eight or a good half (51 %) were buried in spring: twenty-four in March and thirty-four in April. Af- ter subsiding in May, death claimed thirty more lives in summer—eleven in June, nine in July, and again eleven in August. Despite an increased mortality, the town of Višnja Gora was less affected than the surrounding countryside. Except for April and July, each registering five deaths, it remained largely un- scathed by the plague. The deaths of seventeen locals in the entire year, albeit representing twice the an- nual average from previous years (8.5 %), fall short of reflecting a surge in mortality across the parish, which registered seventy-eight deaths in 1713 and sixty-three in 1714. There is, furthermore, no notice- able increase in the number of deceased foreigners and beggars, to whom this small town could not offer a hoped-for relief.236 In 1715, high mortality was also observed in the parish and market town of Žužemberk. Death was rampant from February to August, reaching its peak at the end of May, and claiming sixty-four lives or almost one-quarter of altogether 279 victims that year. The spike in mortality compared to previous years was much like that in Kočevje. Equally dev- astated were the surrounding areas registering 209 deaths and the market town sixty-eight.237 Given its population of 521 in 1754,238 the biggest Lower Carniolan market town had lost about one-eighth of its inhabitants. Nonetheless, this share seems exces- sively high because Žužemberk was much more pop- ulated in the early eighteenth century than fifty years later. Specifically, about 1703, the local seigniory comprised 130 subordinate units and only ninety-six under the Theresian Cadaster.239 A surge in mortality in 1715 was also recorded in the parish of Šmartno pri Litiji. In the second half of 1714 and the first half of 1715, around 294 persons died, accounting for 2.8 times more than 235 NŠAL, ŽA Višnja Gora, Matične knjige, M 1713–1748. 236 The deaths of two foreigners in the town in no way coincided with the time of increased mortality. A beggar died in early March and a woman from the neighboring parish of Šmarje died an unexpected death at the end of September. 237 NŠAL, ŽA Žužemberk, Matične knjige, M 1710–1724. 238 The census of souls by individual places, including the mar- ket town of Žužemberk, focuses strictly on the serfs of the Žužemberk seigniory (ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–IX–22, Conv. 1, Seelen Conscription June 20th, 1754), who repre- sented almost the entire market town population, barring the inhabitants of the castle, the parish house, and the only foreign enclave—a hide subordinate to the local parish priest (SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 32, N 183). 239 ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–84, Rent-roll Seisenberg ca. 1703, s. p.—SI AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko, N 183, no. 20, s. d. (ca. 1755). the ten-year average in 1711–1720 (about 821) and, excluding the epidemic year, as much as 5.4 times more than the average (54.1 per year). Interestingly, the market town of Litija was left largely unaffected, registering three deaths at the end of 1714 and not one in the ensuing year.240 As elsewhere, an unusually high number of beggars were buried in 1714–1715. The death register also contains a note describing the nature of death. After Andrej Bratun’s farmhand from Kresniški Vrh passed away on August 24th, 1714, another of his farmhands died a sudden death (repentina quasi morte) the day after. The number of lives claimed by the epidemic and hunger in the parishes of other towns and mar- ket towns remains undeterminable due to the lack of preserved death registers. With plenty of patient work, mortality levels could also be traced for several other rural parishes of Lower Carniola and Carniola. However, whereas such research could draw a more complex portrait of dying in different corners of the province, little if anything can be expected from it in terms of concrete reports on the nature of the dis- ease. The so-called plague of 1715 was a conglom- erate of two close allies: the epidemic incorporating several different diseases and hunger resulting from poor harvests and disturbances in economic and communication flows. In connection with the epidemic of 1715, con- sideration should also be given to Kostanjevica, the only Lower Carniolan town where sources make not a single mention of an outbreak of any contagious disease. With more than a little luck, especially con- sidering its exposed border position and the vicinity of the more than unpopular Uskoks, this small town on the Krka seems to have successfully weathered all major epidemics—otherwise, any Black Death har- vest, however small, could have been inferred from the structure of preserved sources alone. The period that is poorly documented in sources but proved fateful for Kostanjevica started in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, which includes not only the epidemic year of 1715 but also two other peri- ods marked by higher mortality, which will be dis- cussed below. At that time, the number of abandoned homesteads dramatically increased. According to the census of or shortly before 1727, it only had forty- six populated houses and as many as thirty-one abandoned houses, that is, more than two-fifths of emptied or ruined homes (40.3 %).241 Because these 240 There were perhaps a few victims from Litija among the eight children of unidentified name and place, designated merely as “prolis” or “infans.” 241 The vidame archive erroneously classified the census as a doc- ument on Novo Mesto: SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranj- sko, carton 255, I/133, lit. R I–9, Specification der hernach benanthen bürgerlihen häyßer weliche bewohnt sein.—Dat- ing the census to the time shortly prior to 1727 was made possible by statements of widows, for whom the register of marriage clearly states when they remarried (NŠAL, ŽA 178 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 developments coincided with the epidemic of 1715, which killed one-fifth of inhabitants of the neigh- boring Novo Mesto, the observations above lead to the assumption that the sudden abandonment of Kostanjevica was largely due to the death of a con- siderable part of its population. Yet everything points to the contrary, even though the epidemic of 1715 most likely also swept through this town. Namely, in their reports describing the causes for the nota- ble decline of the town during the first half of the eighteenth century, the inhabitants of Kostanjevica mention no plague but three fires, the last of which is unknown from other sources and may be set in the time between 1703 and 1714. Whereas the tax register of 1702 still listed eighty-one unnamed tax- payers and the concurrent visitation stated no more than three abandoned houses,242 in 1704 the town leadership already reported on twenty-six completely abandoned houses and poverty after the town had been razed to the ground by three fires over the last sixty years.243 The structural crisis, typical of Lower Carniolan towns in general, obviously discouraged many fire victims from building new homes and compelled them to leave. The last major plague epidemic in Slovenian ter- ritory came to an end in the early 1717, after having raged for about six years. Although the real (Asian) plague also occurred only in sporadic outbreaks else- where in the ensuing years, it remained a major and costly concern until the mid-eighteenth century, with its frequent eruptions in the neighboring lands in the east and south severely affecting traffic and trade. For the first time after the great epidemic, the news of a plague in the Ottoman Empire and Hungary al- ready spread in mid-1718, after which it also sowed death in the Balkans and Hungary in 1720–1724. At the same time, a disease called “pleuriditis maligna” broke out in Slovenian territory, especially in Lower Carniola, striking fear into the Carniolan provincial estates that it might reach Carniola as well.244 This largely unknown infection could be the reason behind the higher mortality featured in the Kostanjevica, Matične knjige, R 1723–1770, therein: P 1726–1770, M 1745–1770). 242 SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 185, fasc. 104, lit. L II–7, Stüfft register der Statt Landtstraß v(on) 1702, April 30th, 1703. 243 Ibid., lit. L II–1, August 5th, 1714.—Information is available for the fires in 1663 and 1674, which razed to the ground nearly half and one-fifth of homes, respectively (SI AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko, carton 184, I/104, lit. L II–2, March 31st, 1686, August 9th, 1686), but nothing is known from sources about the third and the last fire. Valvasor knew nothing about it, even though he kept abreast of fires that had erupted in other towns during the years leading up to the publication of his Glory of the Duchy of Carniola. No refer- ences to the consequences of the fire are likewise made in the comprehensive instructions to the town leadership in 1691 (ibid., July 28th, 1691) and the files of the above-mentioned vidame visitation in 1703. 244 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 132. civil registers of some parishes under discussion during the early 1720s. On the other hand, in that period, death registers still stated nothing about the causes of deaths. The situation was especially dire in Kočevje, where the number of deaths in 1721 again spiked to several times the average from previous years. 166 decedents were recorded in the entire par- ish and twenty-four, among them mostly children, in the town of Kočevje.245 Still a year before that, in 1720, an increase in mortality was observed in Novo Mesto, which buried seventy-three persons and seventy-five in 1724.246 Mortality in the parish of Višnja Gora showed a slight increase in 1721 and 1722, without affecting the town inhabitants as badly as it did in previous and subsequent years.247 The par- ish priest of Žužemberk observed a high death toll for no less than five consecutive years, particularly in 1721 and 1724, recording ninety-five and ninety-six deaths, respectively. The market town of Žužemberk faced a similar situation in 1721, but with a slightly smaller death toll than in the plague year of 1715. It lost forty-one inhabitants (sixty-eight in 1715) and twenty-three in 1724.248 Whether any family had become extinct remains unknown; compared to about 1703, the number of households was reduced by (no more than) five until 1731.249 A significant number of deaths were recorded in 1721 and 1724 in the parish of Metlika, where the oldest preserved death register was started no earlier than 1720. 101 persons died the following year and 136 were buried three years later, in 1724.250 Unlike in 1715, the causes of increased mortal- ity in Metlika are much more profusely documented in 1724. The Carniolan provincial estates sent there the physician Franc Ksaver Zalokar, who on return- ing to Novo Mesto stated poor hygienic conditions as the main reason for the epidemic in a report of February 26th, 1725.251 For the past ten days, he had visited patients in the parishes of Metlika, Semič, and Vinica and provided a detailed description of their symptoms, which varied significantly from one place to another. In fact, this was a cohort of several dif- ferent diseases; apart from the major culprit, “pleu- riditis maligna,” adults were also dying of pneumonia and contagious catarrh, and children suffered from sore bottoms. Doctor Zalokar proceeded to describe how easily “pleuriditis maligna” could be transmitted through breathing in small houses that he had seen on his visitation route, adding to which was the rapid 245 NŠAL, ŽA Kočevje, Matične knjige, M 1669–1724. 246 KANM, carton 58, M/11704–1728. 247 NŠAL, ŽA Višnja Gora, Matične knjige, M 1713–1748. 248 NŠAL, ŽA Žužemberk, Matične knjige, M 1710–1724. 249 ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–84, Rent-roll Seisenberg ca. 1703, s. p.; A–15–97, Rent-roll Seisenberg 1731–1733, fols. 1–32. 250 ŽA Metlika, Matične knjige, M 1720–1739. 251 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, p. 132. 179 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 cooling and heating of air. The second reason for infec- tion was the bad habit among the local inhabitants to literally roast themselves near the hot embers in their humble and overheated rooms in the presence of the corpse. Not seldomly, houses would also be crammed with lambs and other livestock, and following a huge post-burial feast, called “carmina” by the Croats,252 where they inhaled the infected air, mourners headed out from the warm house into the cold. On behalf of the provincial authorities, Zalokar prohibited organ- izing such feasts in the presence of corpses and light- ing fire indoors, after a child had burnt itself to death in a room in Črnomelj. He also ordered to separate the dead from the living, as it occurred that during a patient’s confession a dead corpse was found under his bed. Patients most often recovered if they were bled immediately after contracting the disease. In sev- eral villages, between two and three persons died daily and no more than six in the same parish. The rap- porteur compiled a detailed name list of the deceased based on death registers. From the New Year’s Day to February 17th, fifty-nine persons died in the parish of Metlika, fifty-two in the parish of Črnomelj, nineteen in the parish of Semič, twenty-five in the parish of Podzemelj, and one of five infected died as early as the Christmas Eve the preceding year in the parish of Vinica. The towns of Metlika and Črnomelj were variably affected, but the latter not nearly as badly as during the plague of 1691–1692. The Metlika sub- urbs registered eight deaths and the town itself six, including two newborns conceived by the garrisoned troops. The small town of Črnomelj lost fifteen in- habitants, including five children, and the suburbs six adults and one child.253 The period up to the mid-eighteenth century witnessed other concurrent increases in mortality across the Lower Carniolan parishes under discus- sion, which may be attributed to this or that conta- gious disease or hunger, but the death registers pro- vide no specifications as to the type of the disease. The most conspicuous case of mass deaths that trig- gered a wave of unsubstantiated rumors of the plague can be traced to Novo Mesto between the autumn of 1736 and the spring of 1737. From November 22nd, 1736, to March 20th, 1737, forty-seven sol- diers, their wives, and members from Francis of Lor- raine’s regiment died of an unidentified disease, a few times up to two or three soldiers per day. Although the army was not the only social segment affected by the plague, it was an agent of its spread and its greatest victim. In January and partly in February, the number of deceased local inhabitants also more than doubled compared to the average from previ- 252 Who were in fact White Carniolans (Golec, Nedokončana kroatizacija, p. 24). 253 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 688, fasc. 393, Sanitetno poročilo iz Bele krajine 1725. ous years, suggesting that the infection had spread among the civilian population.254 Measures to re- verse the spread of the disease must have been rather stringent and the fearmongering rumors vastly exag- gerated. In March, the Carniolan provincial estates’ delegation office received two separate letters from the Gorizia provincial estates’ delegation office and the health committee of the town of Koper in Vene- tian Istria regarding the epidemic in Novo Mesto. The inhabitants of Koper inquired whether Carniola and especially Novo Mesto were indeed closed. The Gorizia provincial estates’ delegates even received a note from the health committee in Venetian Pal- manova, stating that Carniola had imposed a closure after thirty individuals died in Novo Mesto. The fear of the plague was significant and well-justified, based on the carnage it caused that year in Turkish Bos- nia. Responding to their counterparts in Koper and Gorizia, the Carniolan provincial estates’ delegates explained that these were fabrications invented by malicious tongues that spread rumors of a contagious disease and the closure. What really transpired in the previous year was that seven companies under the Duke of Lorraine’s regiment came to Carniola from Hungary with a few infected men among them, who were accommodated in Novo Mesto. The men died of the “Hungarian fever,” but no one suddenly and due to carelessness. Moreover, after the troops had had a good rest from their draining march, there had been no news of the disease since autumn. The re- port, written on March 25th, 1737, was not entirely truthful because the wave of mass dying ended only five days before that. At the end of that same year, the Venetian Republic closed the border with Carni- ola for the last time because of cattle plague and an epidemic that sowed death across the Generalate of Karlovac.255 In addition to sporadic occurrences in Gorizia in 1732, Carniola faced the last direct threat of the plague from Hungarian and Croatian provinces be- tween 1738 and 1741. The plague entailed high ex- penses for security measures and complete cessation of trade. The last closure of the border with Croatia and plague closures in general were set up in 1744, when the epidemic was swiftly contained. On the other hand, the plague continued to visit Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia, and Turkish Bosnia almost until the end of the eighteenth century, but apart from harming traffic and trade in the neighboring Aus- trian hereditary territories, it left no major devasta- tion in its wake.256 From the mid-eighteenth century onward, the plague as such and as a designation for an epidemic 254 KANM, carton 66, M/3 1736–1752. 255 SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 688, fasc. 393, Zapora v Beneški Istri 1732, 1737. 256 Travner, Kuga na Slovenskem, pp. 132–133.—SI AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, Reg. I, carton 688, fasc. 393. 180 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 gave way to new and old epidemic diseases that had occasionally already wreaked havoc under its name. In the period, during which Lower Carniola tran- sitioned to a more beneficial period unburdened by real plagues, special mention ought to be made of the dysentery epidemic in the second half of the 1750s.257 Although dysentery killed several dozen adults and children in several Lower Carniolan towns and mar- ket towns in 1757–1758,258 the aftermath of this and subsequent epidemics can in no way be compared to the earlier plague epidemics, when the fear of infec- tion and the actual threat of a rapid spread struck terror into provinces far from epidemic foci. As a rule, the economic consequences of shutting down main routes and paralyzing the established life flows and functions were disproportionately more severe than the demographic impacts, which—compared to the afflictions suffered in Lower Carniola and sur- rounding provinces—often yet unfairly seem almost negligible. REFERENCES ARCHIVAL SOURCES SI AS – Arhiv Republike Slovenije AS 1, Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko AS 2, Deželni stanovi za Kranjsko, I. reg. AS 6, Reprezentanca in komora za Kranjsko v Ljubljani AS 166, Mesto Višnja Gora AS 174, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko: AS 746, Cistercijanski samostan Kostanjevica AS 774, Gospostvo Ribnica AS 1074, Zbirka urbarjev AS 1080, Zbirka Muzejskega društva za Kranj- sko, Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo in Histo- ričnega društva za Kranjsko DOZA – Deutschordens-Zentralarchiv, Wien Abt. Österreich, BÖ = Abteilung Österreich, Ballei Österreich KANM – Kapiteljski arhiv Novo mesto Kapucinski samostan Krško NŠAL – Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana ŽA – Župnijski arhivi: ŽA Črnomelj, ŽA Kočevje, ŽA Kostanjevica, ŽA Ljubljana–sv. Nikolaj, ŽA Ljubljana–sv. Peter, ŽA Mokronog, ŽA Šmartno pri Litiji, ŽA Višnja Gora, ŽA Žužemberk. 257 SI AS 6, Reprezentanca in komora za Kranjsko v Ljublja- ni, carton 120, fasc. XXXIX, Sanitetne zadeve, August 30th, 1756, September 6th, 1756. 258 Cf. Golec, Prebivalstvo in družba, pp. 99 f. ÖStA, HHStA – Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Wien FAA – Fürstlich Auerspergsches Archiv StLA – Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv Graz I.Ö. HK – Archiv der innerösterreichischen Hof- kammer I.Ö. HK-Rep. – Repertorien der innerösterrei- chischen Hofkammer I.Ö. HK-Akten – Innerösterreichischen Hof- kammer-Akten ŽA Metlika – Župnijski arhiv Metlika LITERATURE AND PUBLISHED SOURCES Benedik, Metod in Kralj, Angel: Kapucini na Slo- venskem v zgodovinskih virih. Nekdanja Štajerska kapucinska province. Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgo- dovino Cerkve pri Teološki fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani, 1994 (Acta ecclesiastica Sloveniae, 16). [Dimitz, August]: Annalen der landesfürstlichen Stadt Gurkfeld. Mittheilungen des historischen Ve- reins für Krain 15, 1860, str. 84–85. [Dimitz, August]: Beiträge zur fünfhundertjährigen Gründungsfeier von Neustadtl (Rudolfswerth) in Unterkrain. Mittheilungen des historischen Vereins für Krain 20, 1865, str. 25–44. Dimitz, August: Geschichte Krains von der ältesten Zeit bis auf das Jahr 1813. Vierter Theil. Laibach: Kleinmyr & Bamberg, 1876 Dimitz, August: Zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte in Krain, II. Landstraß. Mittheilungen des historischen Vereins für Krain 19, 1864, str. 79–80. Dular, Jože: Metlika skozi stoletja. Metlika: Belo- kranjsko muzejsko društvo, 1978. Dular, Jože: Metlika skozi stoletja. Metlika: Belo- kranjsko muzejsko društvo, 1986. Golec, Boris: Nedokončana kroatizacija delov vzhodne Slovenije med 16. in 19. stoletjem: po sledeh hrvaške- ga lingvonima in etnonima v Beli krajini, Kostelu, Prekmurju in Prlekiji. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2012. Golec, Boris: Prebivalstvo in družba dolenjskih me- ščanskih naselij od 15. do srede 18. stoletja. Ljublja- na, 1997 (magistrska naloga). Jarc, Janko: Iz preteklih stoletij Novega mesta. Novo mesto. Kulturnozgodovinski vodnik (ed. Tone Knez). Novo mesto: Dolenjski muzej, 1976, str. 17–96. Jelinčič, Zdravko: Črna smrt v Gorici leta 1682. Kro- nika 2, 1954, št. 2, str. 115–121. Koblar, A.[nton]: Iz kronike krškega mesta. Izve- stja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 9, 1899, str. 19–24. Koblar, Anton: O človeški kugi na Kranjskem. Izve- stja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 1, 1891, str. 39–55. 181 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–1822022 Koropec, Jože: Krško v obdobju velikih slovenskih kmečkih vstaj. Krško skozi čas 1477–1977. Zbornik ob 500-letnici mesta (ed. Lado Smrekar). Krško: Skupščina občine, Odbor za pripravo praznova- nja 500-letnice Krškega, 1977, str. 45–59. Koropec, Jože: Žebnik, Radeče in Svibno do 17. sto- letja. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 50, NV 15, 1979, št. 1–2, str. 51–77. Luschin v. Ebengreuth, A.[lfons]: Ein Protokoll der Stadt Stein. Mitteilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 18, 1905, str. 38–67. Milkowicz, Wlad.[imir]: Beiträge zur Rechts- und Verwaltungsgeschichte Krains. Mitteilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 2, 1889, str. 3–40; 3, 1890, str. 41–52. Podlogar, Leopold: Kronika mesta Črnomlja in nje- ga župe. Ljubljana: Samozaložba Tomo Zupan, 1906. Podlogar, Leopold: Požari v Metliki. Izvestja Muzej- skega društva za Kranjsko 7, 1907, str. 46. Smole, Majda: Kuga na Kranjskem v 16. stoletju. Kronika 5, 1957, št. 2, str. 97–98. Travner, Vladimir: Kuga na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Življenje in svet, 1934. Umek, Ema: Kuga na Štajerskem v letih 1679–1683. Kronika 6, 1958, št. 2, str. 80–84. Valenčič, Vlado: Prebivalstvo in hiše stare Ljubljane. Kronika 5, 1957, št. 3, str. 111–123. Valvasor, Johann Weichard: Die Ehre deß Hertzog- thums Crain, I–XV. Laybach, Nürnberg: Wolf- gang Moritz Endter, 1689. Vrhovec, Ivan: Zgodovina Novega mesta. Ljubljana: Matica slovenska, 1891. Vrhovec, Joh.[ann]: Die Pest in Laibach. Mitteilun- gen des Musealvereines für Krain 12, 1899, str. 25– 40, 83–99, 129–141; 13, 1900, str. 17–24. Waltritsch, Marko: Prvi goriški kronist Giovanni Maria Marusig in njegovi opisi nasilnih smrti v Gorici v 17. stoletju. Množične smrti na Sloven- skem. Zbornik referatov. 29. zborovanje slovenskih zgodovinarjev. Izola, 22. – 24. 10. 1998 (eds. Stane Granda in Barbara Šatej). Ljubljana: Zveza zgo- dovinskih društev, 1999, str. 189–200. Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Epidemije na Slovenskem. Lakote, kuge in vojne reši nas, o Gospod! Mno- žične smrti na Slovenskem. Zbornik referatov. 29. zborovanje slovenskih zgodovinarjev. Izola, 22. – 24. 10. 1998 (eds. Stane Granda in Barbara Ša- tej). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev, 1999, str. 201–210. P O V Z E T E K Kužne epidemije na Dolenjskem med izroči- lom in stvarnostjo Dolenjska je tista slovenska pokrajina, ki so jo različne kužne epidemije v zgodnjem novem veku obiskale najpogosteje in jo poleg Istre tudi najbolj prizadele. Zlasti njena mesta, povečini miniaturna in malo pomembna, so med slovenskimi kontinentalni- mi mesti zagotovo utrpela najhujše posledice. Tudi nasploh so mesta in trgi v primerjavi s podeželjem teže občutili breme epidemij zaradi svoje večje pre- hodnosti in koncentracije prebivalstva. Na Dolenj- skem je nosilo najtežje breme Novo mesto, drugo najpomembnejše mesto na Kranjskem in med sed- mimi dolenjskimi mesti edino z več kot tisoč pre- bivalci. V luči majhnosti mestnih naselij so v virih toliko bolj presenetljive izredno visoke številke umr- lih, kakršnih drugod na Kranjskem ni zaslediti. Prav verodostojnost in teža števila umrlih je eno temeljnih vprašanj, na katerega skuša pričujoči prispevek poi- skati kolikor toliko zadovoljiv odgovor ob precej ne- ugodni strukturi in naravi virov. Še manj oprijemlji- ve so razsežnosti gospodarskih in socialnih posledic epidemij, ki so praktično nemerljive z zanesljivimi kazalci, zato pri njihovem ugotavljanju le s težavo presegamo deskriptivno raven in besednjak sodob- nih poročil. Prav tako skoraj ničesar ne vemo o bole- zenskih znakih posameznih kug, na podlagi katerih bi bilo edino moč ugotavljati, za kakšno bolezen je sploh šlo. Pod imenom kuga se v obravnavanem ob- dobju poleg prave kuge skriva sicer še kakšnih deset epidemičnih bolezni. Zelo malo je znano o samem dogajanju v času divjanja epidemij, ki ga dokumentirajo le sodni- ški letni obračuni Višnje Gore v času treh manjših epidemij druge polovice 16. stoletja ter poročila t. i. kužnega komisarja iz Črnomlja v letih 1691–1692, med katera spadajo tudi edini ohranjeni seznami umrlih in ozdravelih okužencev. Ravno za mesta, od koder imamo mlajša poročila o visokem številu umr- lih, tovrstnih poročil prve roke ni. Sumarne navedbe umrlih, ki so jih z večjo ali manjšo časovno distanco večinoma posredovala mesta sama, je bilo zato pri preverjanju potrebno soočiti z najrazličnejšimi dru- gimi sodobnimi viri. Posebna pozornost in hkrati previdnost veljata natančnim, nezaokroženim številkam, pri katerih dobimo vtis, da so morale temeljiti na sodobnih spe- cifikacijah. Najočitnejši pretiravanji predstavljata su- marna podatka o več kot 800 umrlih Novomeščanih leta 1599, od tega 149 hišnih gospodarjih, in o kar 1200 žrtvah kuge v Metliki v letih 1646–1647. V no- vomeškem primeru bi šlo za več kot polovico umrlega 182 BORIS GOLEC: PLAGUE EPIDEMICS IN LOWER CARNIOLA BETWEEN TRADITION AND REALITY, 141–182 2022 prebivalstva, a je analiza imen gospodarjev opustelih hiš pokazala, da je mogoče računati z največ nekaj sto umrlimi. Metlika bi morala izgubiti več prebivalcev, kot jih je mesto sredi 17. stoletja sploh lahko imelo (okoli 900). Veliko realnejši sta navedbi o 322 umrlih Novomeščanih za kugo leta 1625, o »samo 18 umr- lih« leta 1648 in o 331 pokopih v celem letu 1715, ki ga je zaznamovala zadnja epidemija. Nenumerične navedbe v virih o smrti velikega števila ljudi in celo o »izumrtju« mesta Črnomelj je treba razumeti kot način izražanja in ne dobesedno. Med njimi so tudi evidentne neresnice, namenje- ne višjim oblastvom zunaj Kranjske, kot na primer podatek o polovici umrlih meščanov in prebivalcev mesteca Višnja Gora leta 1599 ali o veliko umrlih najuglednejših meščanih Kočevja v istem času. Prite- gnitev davčnih registrov in drugih sodobnih poročil med epidemijo ali neposredno po njej odkriva pov- sem drugačna dejstva: kuga se je obeh mest le dotak- nila, če se ni Kočevju sploh izognila. Poleg Novega mesta so kuge opazno prizadele še tri dolenjska mesta: epidemija 1646–1647 Krško in Metliko, za kateri število in delež umrlih prebivalcev nista ugotovljiva, lokalno omejena kuga v letih 1691– 1692 pa Črnomelj. Tu je obolelo 216 in umrlo 139 ljudi (64,4 %), kar je predstavljalo približno petino vsega mestnega prebivalstva. Vsaj eno petino umrlih prebivalcev je mogoče izračunati tudi za Novo me- sto v letih 1625 in 1715, kolikor ni 322 oziroma 331 oseb predstavljalo četrtino ali celo višji delež, bližji eni tretjini. Šele zadnjo epidemijo leta 1715 je mogoče spre- mljati po mrliških matičnih knjigah več dolenjskih župnij. Kot vse kaže, tokrat razen v Novem mestu ni šlo za visoke, a nikakor ne za zanemarljive človeške žrtve. To je bila hkrati zadnja velika epidemija, ki jo viri imenujejo kuga, nakar je ta vznemirjala Kranjsko do srede 18. stoletja le še z izbruhi v vzhodni sosešči- ni. Čeprav ni več razsajala po deželi, je tako kot prej že zaradi delne ali popolne ustavitve tovornega in potniškega prometa tudi na Dolenjskem povzročila nemalo gospodarske škode. Povsem razumljivo je, zakaj se demografske po- sledice v virih vselej navezujejo na gospodarske. Po- javu epidemije na določenem kraju je namreč sledila izolacija okuženega območja, kar je pomenilo pretr- ganje komunikacij in ustavitev trgovsko-prometnih tokov. Kužne straže, ki so jih v drugih potencialno ogroženih krajih postavile deželne ter posamezne lokalne oblasti, ljudem in blagu niso dovoljevale prehoda brez zdravstvenih spričeval. Izbruh še tako lokalno omejene epidemije je praviloma povzročil zaprtje deželnih meja in posledično močno omejitev oziroma popolno ustavitev prometa, zaradi česar je tako ali drugače trpelo celotno deželno gospodarstvo. Zlasti dolgotrajne zapore so lahko za seboj potegnile hude izgube raznih gospodarskih dejavnosti, obubo- žanje določenih slojev, davčno nesolventnost, ki jo je v končni posledici občutila deželna blagajna, po- manjkanje življenjskih potrebščin in drugih artiklov ter končno prave lakote. 183 2022 SPECIAL ISSUE UDK 616.932:94(497.4)"18" Katarina Keber PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Milko Kos Historical Institute, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana Email: katarina.keber@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2586-4983 Carniola’s Defense Mechanism for Protection against the First Cholera Epidemic in Europe* ABSTRACT The Habsburg authority fought against the epidemic of cholera, which firstly reached Europe at the beginning of the 30ies of the 19th century, with identical means as they did in the 18th century against plague. With a system of sanitary cordons, they initially protected the state borders, and after the occurrence of the disease within the monarchy, borders of separate provinces as well. From the example of a sanitary cordon on the Carniolan-Croatian border, which was established for the protection against the epidemic in the Hungarian part of the state, the system of controlled pas- sages trough sanitary cordons (rastel) and quarantines is evident, and causes that lead to general further discontinu- ation of closing borders as a means of defence against cholera. KEY WORDS history of medicine, epidemics, Cholera, sanitary cordon, Carniola, 19th century IZVLEČEK KRANJSKI OBRAMBNI MEHANIZEM ZA ZAŠČITO PRED PRVO EPIDEMIJO KOLERE V EVROPI Proti epidemiji kolere, ki je Evropo prvič dosegla v začetku tridesetih let 19. stoletja, se je habsburška oblast borila z enakimi sredstvi kot v 18. stoletju proti kugi. S sistemom zdravstvenih kordonov so najprej zaščitili državne meje, po pojavu bolezni znotraj monarhije pa tudi meje posameznih dežel. Iz primera zdravstvenega kordona na kranj- sko-hrvaški meji, ki je bil vzpostavljen za zaščito pred epidemijo v ogrskem delu države, je razviden sistem rastelov in karanten ter vzroki, ki so vodili k vsesplošnemu nadaljnjemu opuščanju zapiranja meja kot sredstvu za obrambo pred kolero. KLJUČNE BESEDE kolera, epidemije, zdravstveni kordon, Kranjska, 19. stoletje * The contribution is a translation of the publication in the review Kronika 53, 2005, no. 3, pp. 351–364. 184 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–196 2022 In the 1830s, Europe experienced what is known as the first Asiatic cholera pandemic. The spread of the disease from Asia to Europe was most likely facilitated by intense trade contacts and increasing traffic between the British Empire and India or, in other words, by Britain’s expansion to the east. Chol- era spread from India following two main routes: through Persia and along the river Ural northward to Russia, and then to Europe from Mecca through the ports of Istanbul, Turkey, and Alexandria, Egypt. The disease struck Europe for the first time during its second pandemic1 between 1826 and 1837, a period when most of the world is generally considered to have had the first real experience with cholera. From the Black Sea, the disease reached Europe from two directions: through Poland, after it broke out in east- ern Galicia in 1830, and through the Danubian prin- cipalities.2 By 1831, it had engulfed Sankt Peterburg, Berlin, and Hamburg, and appeared in Finland and England. In the Habsburg Monarchy, apart from Vi- enna, the disease also affected Galicia, Moravia, Sile- sia, Transylvania, Upper and Lower Austria, Styria, as well as Bohemian and especially Hungarian parts of the monarchy. In a little over than six years, chol- era swept across the old continent and the Americas.3 State policy When cholera broke out in the Habsburg Mon- archy in 1831, the state responded with a two-phased approach. The first phase of defense was of a strictly preventive nature, and it aimed to protect the state borders against an unknown disease spreading from the neighboring countries by establishing a system of cordons sanitaires along the monarchy’s eastern border.4 The second phase also had a curative char- acter, and it was introduced once cholera had bro- ken through the border protection mechanisms and spread into the monarchy’s interior. By isolating in- fected areas, the state sought to minimize the spread of the disease to other parts of the country and pro- vide for the internal protection of the provinces by appointing provisional emergency health authorities with almost unlimited discretionary powers, such as provincial health commissions, tasked with organ- izing aid and medical treatment for patients in the 1 Robert Pollitzer broke down the spreads of cholera into sev- en pandemics or, rather, epidemics of global proportions. The second pandemic encompassed the epidemics in England, Ireland, France with Paris, Quebec, Montreal, New York, and Philadelphia in 1832; Spain, Portugal, the Caribbean, and Latin America in 1833; Italy in 1835, and the Mediterranean in the following years–Carniola was hit by the first cholera epidemic in 1836. 2 Krebs, Die geographische Verbreitung der Cholera, p. 8. 3 The Cambridge World History of Human Disease, pp. 645–648. 4 Cordon sanitaire (also sanitary cordon) is a line established around an area to prevent the spread of a contagious disease by restricting passage into or out of the area. infected areas. The first phase of defense against the cholera epidemic will be presented on the example of setting up the cordon sanitaire on the Carniolan- Croatian border. The plague and cordons sanitaires The entire defense system of the Habsburg Mon- archy built on regulations and practices that had been developed in the struggle against plague epidemics over the previous centuries.5 In Carniola, too, cor- dons sanitaires and quarantine were a tried and tested protective measure against the plague, with a known example of border closure imposed in the Karawanks between 1713 and 1716 to prevent the plague from spreading from Carinthia.6 The protective measures against the first cholera epidemic in the Habsburg Monarchy rested on the Pest-Reglement, Maria The- resa’s patent of January 2nd, 1770, or the General Health Law on Fighting the Plague.7 Before that, a number of plague orders (Infections-Ordnung) were in place, the first issued by Emperor Ferdinand I in 1551. The first part of the Pest-Reglement governs the organization of the medical service across the mon- archy and the second provides for a special organiza- tion of the medical service in the Military Frontier.8 The latter gradually changed from what was initially a strictly military formation into a health-prevention institution whose specific organizational forms and con- tumacy (quarantine) facilities protected not only Austria but all of Europe against the plague and other contagious diseases and epizootics which constantly spread from the Turkish sultanate.9 The cordon sanitaire in the Military Frontier became a permanent institution in 1728. The anti-plague system proved to be highly effective, given that in the second half of the eight- eenth century the plague passed through the cordon no more than five times, only once posing a serious threat to the monarchy.10 5 Peter Baldwin bases the decision for individual measures in different European countries on the previous experience with prevention, understanding the transmission of the disease, geographical conditions, and the economy. During the first epidemic of cholera in 1831, strict quarantine was typical- ly imposed by autocratic countries in Eastern Europe, e.g., Russia, Prussia, and Austria. Western Europe introduced a slightly milder form of the quarantine policy in combination with other measures, except in major ports, such as Hamburg and Marseille (Brunton, Dealing with disease, pp. 194–195). 6 Koblar, O človeški kugi na Kranjskem, p. 45. See also Žontar, Zapora proti kugi. 7 Borisov, Od ranocelništva, p. 90; Kobal, O koleri na Kranj- skem, p. 74. The term Pest-Reglement is cited from Kobal, whereas Grmek writes about Normativum sanitatis. 8 SI AS 1079, Zbirka normalij, t. u. 4, Maria Theresa’s patent of January 2nd, 1770; Borisov, Od ranocelništva, p. 78. 9 Borisov, Od ranocelništva, p. 73. 10 Borisov, Od ranocelništva, p. 74; Grmek, Sanitarni kordon Vojne krajine, pp. 457–458. 185 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–1962022 The cordon sanitaire, set up in 1831 to ensure protection against cholera, was organized in accord- ance with the provisions of the Pest-Reglement from 1770 and following the example of its counterpart in the Military Frontier. The cordon remained in force until October 14th, 1831, when the emperor replaced it with regulations applicable to epidemic diseases.11 All extraordinary measures, such as the border clo- sure or the cordon sanitaire and quarantine stations, were abolished and cholera started to be treated as any other epidemic disease pursuant to the norm of 1806.12 This document no longer stipulated special state defense measures and in its ten articles merely set out general preventive and curative measures for every individual to abide by in the time of contagion. The norm also reassured that the disease was not new and had already occurred under similar weather conditions and circumstances, but that fairer weather and God’s Will should take it away (Die Krankheit ist nicht neu, sondern wir sahen selbe bey einer ähnliche lange anhaltenden Witterung und unter gleichen Um- ständen immer entstehen. Wir dürfen auch, da die Jah- reszeit nun so weit vorgerückt und bereit besseres Wetter eingetreten ist, es mit Zuversicht erwarten, dass Gott diese Krankheit bald gänzlich von uns hinwegnehmen werde).13 The authorities instructed the population to pursue a moderate and healthy way of life, and above all to keep their homes and surroundings clean, they prescribed procedures to be followed in case of ill- ness and advised people to keep up the good spirit and strong faith in God.14 The emperor described the conditions that ne- cessitated a change in understanding the nature of the disease and thus a change in the defense strat- egy against cholera in an imperial letter to Count Mitrowski, Head of the United Court Chancellery.15 11 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 738: proclamation of the Illyrian gubernium of November 17th, 1831; SI AS 14, Gu- bernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2413. 12 Laibacher Zeitung, Amts-Blatt, December 1st, 1831, no. 144, pp. 1221–1222; SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 739: Un- terricht in Bezug des Benehmens bei epidemisch ansteckenden Krankheiten von 27. Februar 1806. 13 Laibacher Zeitung, Amts-Blatt, December 1st, 1831, no. 144, pp. 1221–1222. 14 Ibid. 15 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2413. The English translation reads: “When the cholera epidemic threatened to break into my lands, the nature, the origin, and the way in which the disease spread raised doubt. Caution, wisdom, and concern for the wellbeing of my sub- jects set in motion the tried and tested measures to protect against the most dangerous contagious disease. The provi- sions of the Pest-Reglement (italics by the translator) thus came into force. Yet the failure to comply with them allowed the disease to spread unhindered. Institutions and measures laid bare the shortcomings that proved even more harmful than the disease-induced calamity itself. The closures posed a particularly serious threat to the health of cordoned-off com- munities, with the locally stationed troops more frequently contracting and spreading the disease against which they were supposed to protect. The fear of the threat of infection, In the letter, he stated several reasons for the regula- tory change, the most important being that the de- fense mechanisms under the Pest-Reglement proved to be completely ineffective in tackling cholera epidemics. In mid-October 1831, after the disease had spread widely across the monarchy, the authori- ties realized that the established system of cordons sanitaires and the network of quarantine institutions were not enough to fight off the disease. Moreover, through the construction of necessary infrastruc- ture and the promotion of employment, this defense mechanism not only drained the treasury, but it also hindered interprovincial traffic and trade, and thus largely contributed to economic stagnation and civil discontent. The latter, further fueled by the flawed public health system and the general distrust toward the authorities, escalated into unrest several times. The norm of February 27th, 1806, therefore primar- ily aimed at reassuring the population and reminding them to remain god-fearing and refrain from chang- ing their daily habits. The statement that the disease was not something new and unknown was also in- tended to have a heartening effect. People were en- couraged to believe that the government was coping with the situation and that the disease was, after all, not so dangerous as it originally appeared. The first protective measure introduced by Em- peror Franz I in 1830 was the military cordon on the border with Russia, initially considered a suc- cess for having temporarily contained the spread of the disease.16 As the first outbreak of cholera within the borders of the Habsburg Monarchy occurred in eastern Galicia in the spring of 1831, the emperor sought to protect western Galicia and other parts of the state by setting up two military cordons sanitaires on the Vistula and the San, which failed to stop the disease from spreading. The third and the fourth cor- dons, which protected the northern and southwest- ern part of Hungary—the right bank of the Dan- ube—from Galicia also proved inefficient after the entire Hungary quickly became the second focus of the outbreak in the monarchy.17 When the first case of cholera in Hungary was recorded on June 13th, 1830, the existing two military cordons on the San to its discharge into the Vistula and along the bor- ders of Moravia and Silesia protecting the Austrian provinces against the infected Galicia were added a chain of military cordons to safeguard the prov- which resulted in all these measures, robbed many patients of the urgent treatment and care, and it also stood as an obstacle to mutual assistance; not least, these measures also affected trade and traffic, as well as crafts—they wrecked individuals’ prosperity and robbed thousands of their income...” 16 Illyrisches Blatt, October 1st, 1831, no. 40, p. 157, „Über die Aufhebung der Sanitäts-Cordone gegen die Cholera“; Lai- bacher Zeitung, June 7th, 1831, no. 45, p. 461. 17 Illyrisches Blatt, October 1st, 1831, no. 40, p. 157, „Über die Aufhebung der Sanitäts-Cordone gegen die Cholera“. 186 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–196 2022 inces against the spread of cholera from Hungary.18 When cholera erupted in northern Hungarian coun- ties, the emperor ordered to set up a cordon sanitaire and incorporate it into the established military cor- don toward Galicia, starting at the San’s discharge into the Vistula and continuing to the Hungarian border. To this cordon, he then also ordered a rapid incorporation of other existing cordons (Zoll-Linie) toward Hungary, lined along the provincial borders of Moravia, Lower Austria, Inner Austria, Carniola, and the Austrian Littoral. These cordons were trans- formed into cordons sanitaires manned by military units and provided with health institutions.19 The construction of the defense system was therefore ex- panded from the Moravian border with Galicia to include the Lower Austrian, Inner Austrian, Carni- olan, and Austrian-Littoral borders with Hungary.20 Hungary in the grip of fear and uncertainty Within the Habsburg Monarchy itself, Carniola faced the most severe and imminent cholera threat from Hungary. The epidemic broke out in June 1831 in Tisza-Ujlak, a town situated upstream of the Tisa in the administrative county of Ugocsa, from where it was spread by salt rafters.21 By mid-July, the disease had reached the Danube and infected nearly all parts of Hungary by the beginning of September.22 The epidemic peaked between June 13th and September 27th, when 2,269 Hungarian districts and towns re- corded 218,183 infections and 87,391 deaths.23 The city of Pest alone registered 1,648 deaths of about 3,700 infections between July and September.24 In 1831/1832, Hungary with a population of 8,750,000 registered 435,330 persons infected with cholera or 5% of the Hungarian population, 188,000 of which died. Mortality was 43%.25 The United Court Chancellery kept the guber- nium in Ljubljana informed about the developments in Hungary. Two major concerns raised by the Hun- garian government were the shortage of physicians and the lack of knowledge about the nature of the disease, which was typical of most infected countries and regions. A major challenge facing physicians apart from large distances and poor traffic connec- tions was the overall simple-mindedness. Ordinarily, the rural population placed more trust in the clergy’s advice and felt that physicians and the government 18 Ibid., pp. 157–159. 19 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, no. 16142. 20 Laibacher Zeitung, July 19th, 1831, no. 57, pp. 226–227; Birk- ner, Die bedrohte Stadt, p. 22. 21 Eckstein, Die epidemische Cholera, p. 13. 22 Jankovich, Die epidemische Cholera, p. 101. 23 Jovin, Epidemija kolere, p. 26. 24 Eckstein, Die epidemische Cholera, p. 26. 25 Lukács, Az 1831–1832 évi magyarországi kolerajárvány, p 131 (I would like to thank Eva Lengyel for the translation). were hiding the truth about the disease. The sense of powerlessness and fear among the Hungarian popu- lation during the epidemic was, for example, mani- fested in the peasant uprising, the so-called kolera felkeles, which was attended by no less than 45,000 people.26 On July 17th, 1831, riots also erupted in Pest, af- ter students organized a mass demonstration against the temporary suspension of studies due to the epi- demic and gathered at Danube bridge. The student demonstration was sparked by rumors that once Pest had cut its ties with Buda on the right bank of the Danube and closed the bridge, cholera was elimi- nated from the city and that another disease was af- fecting its population. The students demanded health passes to return home. After the authorities refused to meet their demand, they set out to cross the bridge and at that point were joined by a crowd of busybod- ies and idlers. Eventually, the authorities permitted them to pass and reopened the bridge between Pest and Buda. However, while the students cleared the area peacefully, the rest of the crowd went on a ram- page, breaking windows on public and private build- ings, plundering several taverns, and tearing down the quarantine facility. To establish law and order, the city authorities requested the assistance from the army, which dispersed the crowd, killing seven, leav- ing several wounded and detaining about two hun- dred.27 Part of the Carniolan public—excluding most of the population, of course—learned about the cholera epidemic in Hungary from the newspapers Laibacher Zeitung and Illyrisches Blatt. Their articles described the course of the epidemic, informed about the grow- ing number of infections and deaths, and reported on the search for an effective remedy. Whereas Illyrisches Blatt focused on publishing problem-oriented and educational articles on cholera, the readers of Lai- bacher Zeitung were provided with aggregate data on infections and deaths for the majority of affected countries and major cities, gubernial circulars, proc- lamations of the provincial health commission, and official imperial letters. The cluster of articles, titled Letters from Pest (Briefe aus Pesth), portrays the at- mosphere of fear and uncertainty that took hold of the streets of Pest. People bought excessive supplies of medicines and concoctions of all kinds, with chol- era and the cure for it becoming the central topic as much of rumors on the street as of exchanges and debates in theaters, coffeeshops, wine bars, and beer- houses (Auf allen Strassen, im Theater, in allen Kaffeh-, Wein- und Bierhäusern, wurde nur über zwei Dinge abgehandelt; das erste war die Cholera selbst, und das zweite die Präservative; ein Jeder hatte andere Recepte, 26 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2371. 27 Laibacher Zeitung, August 2nd, 1831, no. 61, pp. 241. 187 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–1962022 und ein Jeder glaubte im Besitz des Besten zu seyn…). There was talk about individual death cases and a purportedly staggering number of deaths among the predominantly poor strata. Georg von Klepetz described the overall psychosis as the culmination point of the greatest fear (Kulminations-Punkt der höchsten Angst).28 The cordon sanitaire on the Carniolan-Croatian border ... the disease is on our doorstep. Once it started to spread in Hungary, our beloved Emperor was quick to find a way to also protect Carniolans and Carinthians from this misfortune; hence the strong military presence on the Croatian border, with soldiers denying passage to anyone who has not been placed under contumacy for twenty days like during the plague, to make absolutely sure that the disease will not reach our land...29 In 1831, Carniola’s anti-cholera defense system was, as already stated, part of broad-range domes- tic defense measures to protect the Austrian prov- inces against cholera spreading from Hungary. The existing system of toll stations and border cordons (Zoll Cordons Linie) along the Hungarian border was transformed into cordons sanitaires with a reinforced military presence. The Inner Austrian cordon line, for example, was further fortified with four addi- tional battalions. The Court War Council (Hofkriegs- rath) imposed on the commanding generals in re- spective provinces that the army must keep a vigilant eye on the entire border line, ensure the continuity of the cordon, and appoint a special commander to this end. The provincial estates were obliged to take part in providing the army with logistical support, which they did, for example, with the construction of military guardhouses.30 On the Carniolan-Croatian border, the authorities envisaged to man the cordon sanitaire with the battalion already stationed there under the command of Seldenhofen, serving as a security cordon against robbers and bandits in the district of Novo Mesto.31 Initially, the measures introduced by the Vien- nese Central Court Commission for Health in the first half of July 1831 did not impose a total closure of traffic between Illyria and Hungary or, rather, be- 28 Illyrisches Blatt, October 8th, 1831, no. 41, pp. 163–164, „Aus Pesth“; Illyrisches Blatt, October 22nd, 1831, no. 43, pp. 169– 172, „Neuere Notizen über die Cholera“; Illyrisches Blatt, Oc- tober 29th, 1831, no. 44, pp. 173–174, „Neuere Notizen über die Cholera“. 29 Potočnik, Potrebno poduzhenje sa kmeta, in the address. See Studen, Prva slovenska knjižica o obrambi pred kolero, pp. 183–184. 30 Guardhouses or ‘čardaki’ (Czartaguen, Tscartaken) stood on tall wooden pillars a few kilometers apart, with guards pa- trolling between them. In: Borisov, Od ranocelništva, p. 81. 31 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, nos. 16560, 16561. tween Carniola and Croatia, and the Littoral. Bor- der toll offices (Gränzzollamt) in Jesenice na Do- lenjskem, Metlika, and Sv. Matija (Gornji Rukavac), the only points of authorized entrance from Croa- tia, were at first only tasked with cleaning cattle and smoking letters.32 Special mention was made of Sv. Matija, where the Istrian (Pazin) district sent its dis- trict commissioner. Namely, the tollhouse there was tasked with smoking letters sent from Rijeka and from the now already infected areas, such as Banat and Timisoara.33 The organization of cordons sanitaires in the monarchy required collaboration of the military and civil authorities. The military authorities appointed the cordon commander, to whom all guards were subordinated (Grenzaussichtsposten). An equal sway in decision-making was granted to district commis- sioners and local authorities.34 The Carniolan cordon was a result of the cooperation between district and customs authorities. Because the establishment and the operation of the entire border defense system re- quired a sizeable crew, the authorities employed the personnel from the existing system of border cus- toms and tobacco trade supervisors (Gränzzoll- und Tabak gefälls Aufsichts Postirungen), answerable to the Cameral Indirect Tax Administration.35 The border control crew was thus composed of 209 so-called ‘income supervisors’36 (Gefällsaufseher) and border riflemen (Gränzjager), as well as 307 soldiers from the border cordon,37 who had already been assigned to border customs and special tobacco tax collectors. Most ‘income supervisors’ and border guards were retired soldiers.38 32 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, no. 16034. 33 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, no. 16033. 34 Rannegger, Die Cholera in der Steiermark, pp. 74–75. 35 Cameral-Gefällenverwaltung commenced its operations in 1830 and was renamed k.k. Vereinigte Cameral-Gefällen- Verwaltung in 1831. Falling under its authority were, among others, the Offices of Border Customs and Salt Tax or Pro- vis. Commerzial-Gränz-Zoll und Salz-Aufschlags-Aemter at Jesenice na Dolenjskem and Metlika, each employing five officials (a tax collector, a controller, a scribe, an apprentice, and a guard). Alois Seitz was the tax collector at Jesenice and Leopold Gapp at Metlika. Auxiliary offices for border customs, salt tax, and the Hungarian thirtieth (Gränz-Zoll- Salz-Aufschlags und zugleich ungarische Dreyssigst-Subsidi- alämter) were administered by tax collectors with the assis- tance of a local guard and further lined along the border with Hungary or, rather, Croatia in Kostanjevica, Vinica, Osilnica, Radovica, Gabrje, Luža, Pobrežje, Griblje, Poljane ob Kolpi, Trava, Babno Polje, and Kermačina (Schematismus, pp. 49–51; Vilfan, Pravna zgodovina, pp. 375). 36 Or financial guards, as referred to in Granda, Bosanski ropar- ji, p. 174. 37 In 1831, two military border cordon departments (k.k. Mili- tär-Gränz-Cordons-Abtheilung) operated as special military bodies with their seats in Ljubljana and Novo Mesto. Sche- matismus, p. 52. 38 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, no. 16034. 188 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–196 2022 The section of the cordon sanitaire crossing the seigniory of Snežnik (SI AS 14, Reg. VIII, f. 36 (35/Chol2), no. 609). 189 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–1962022 It was essential to exert control over the entire stretch of the border between Jesenice na Dolen- jskem and Rijeka (the Hungarian Littoral), including its hardly accessible and passable sections. 516 men were envisaged to perform this task, most of whom were, as mentioned, retired soldiers. Yet there was a growing consensus that it was physically impossible to carry out effective control, even for members of the regular army. Keeping constant guard also signified that only half of the crew were actively engaged at a time. Despite these reservations, the activities con- tinued. A deputation of three district commissioners visited Kostanjevica, Metlika, and (Ilirska) Bistrica to start with the implementation of the prescribed measures in collaboration with border customs offi- cials and the local authorities, after inspecting the en- tire border. The district commissioners were assigned special officials (Gefällsbeamte) who possessed an in- timate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions and deployed income supervisors. To facilitate con- trol of the border between Jesenice na Dolenjskem and Rijeka, the Cameral Indirect Tax Administration divided it into four sections, which were placed under the responsibility of the district commissioners. The first section, running from Jesenice na Dolenjskem to Luže pri Metliki, was supervised by the consump- tion tax commissioner (Verzehrungssteuer) Donatio from Krško; the second border section between Luže and Kostel was placed under the supervision of the adjunct tobacco inspector39 Joseph Walmisberg from Novo Mesto; the third section, running from Kos- tel to Babno Polje, fell under the responsibility of a tollhouse official Fleischmann from Babno Polje; and the fourth section, ending in Rijeka, was placed under the jurisdiction of Pober, an official from the tollhouse at Sv. Matija. This last section, mostly run- ning through the Pazin district, was extended all the way to the coast, as Istria had no customs supervision (Zollaufsicht) in place. The tollhouses at Radovica, Kermačina, and Gaberje were closed.40 An important stretch of the cordon sanitaire ran through the forested and hilly area of Snežnik, char- acterized by hardly negotiable terrain, remoteness from transport or passable roads, poor administration by the Snežnik seigniory, and the overall lack of ad- equate control.41 This area may be considered to have provided the most ‘favorable’ cordon section for ille- gal border crossings. Another indirect indication of boosting surveillance activities in this section is found in a contract on supplying construction and firewood to guardhouses in the Snežnik area, concluded be- tween the District Office Postoj na and the Snežnik 39 Taback Gefällen Inspectorat Adjunkten. 40 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 35/14, no. 16034. 41 See Kačičnik Gabrič, O kmečkih dolgovih nekoliko drugače. seigniory.42 The document ensured free wood supplies from Snežnik’s forests for the construction of guard- houses along the cordon and for accommodating the needs of its sixty-three military posts at Babno Polje on the one hand and the use of land on the other. In exchange, after the cordon was dissolved, the sei- gniory was granted the right to retain the wood, af- ter it had been processed at public expense and used for the construction of guardhouses.43 The provincial health commission lauded the Snežnik seigniory’s gesture as ‘patriotic’ and published it in the newspa- per Laibacher Zeitung, calling for more such actions to support the state in the face of ‘difficult and costly times’ (Die provinzial-Sanitäts- Commission findet sich verpflichtet, diese patriotische uneigennutzige Handlung mit dem lebhaftesten Wunsche zur öffentlichen Kenntniss zu bringen, dass sie in dem gegenwartigen drangvollen Zeitpunkte, wo die Staatsverwaltung mit unermessli- chen Auslagen für die Sanitäts-Anstalten in Anspruch genommen wird, eine reichliche Nachahmung finden möge).44 Joseph Rudesch, the owner of the Ribnica seigniory, responded to the appeal by donating wood for the purposes of the cordon sanitaire to construct fifteen guardhouses45 and the Auersperg seignory of Poljane with its seat in Predgrad contributed materi- als for the construction of guardhouses in the cordon section passing through the seigniory.46 From Carniola, the cordon sanitaire continued westward along the border between the Austrian Lit- toral and the Hungarian Littoral all the way to Volo- sko on the eastern Istrian coast. Whereas initially the land was protected against the Kvarner islands, pre- ventive measures were subsequently also introduced there by also setting up a special health commission on the island of Krk under the jurisdiction of the Pa- zin district office and the central health magistrate in Trieste. About two hundred troops were deployed to the islands. Ships were only allowed to dock at the port of Trieste, which was placed under quarantine. The army was also deployed to Istrian towns, includ- ing Piran and Koper. The defense against cholera continued from Volosko toward the sea along the eastern and western Istrian coasts leading up to Tri- este, and it was executed with ships circling respec- tive designated areas.47 At the behest of the United Court Chancellery and in agreement with the Military Command in Zagreb as well as the provincial commissions in Graz and Trieste, the Illyrian Provincial Health Commis- sion dissolved the Carniolan cordon on September 42 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol 2), no. 609. 43 Ibid. 44 Laibacher Zeitung, August 23rd, 1831, no. 67, p. 265. 45 Laibacher Zeitung, October 11th, 1831, no. 81. 46 Laibacher Zeitung, September 6th, 1831, no. 71, p. 238. 47 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 421. 190 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–196 2022 26th, 1831. At the same time, the cordons in Styria and the Littoral were also terminated.48 Thenceforth, Carniola was safeguarded from cholera by the rein- forced Croatian cordon sanitaire, which ran along the Drava and the Ilova and thus primarily served to protect Croatia against cholera spreading from Hungary and Slavonia. All restriction on the Carn- iolan-Croatian border were lifted, and life returned to normal. Traffic was governed by the existing cus- toms and thirtieth laws, the police decrees on border crossing, and health norms that continued to require a health certificate before crossing the border.49 Illegal cordon crossings: an example of Jožef Petelin Of particular concern were smugglers passing the cordon illegally and undermining the effective- ness of anti-cholera defense. The district office of Ljubljana alerted the local authorities to the prob- lem and requested their cooperation in searching and apprehending undocumented foreigners.50 The Car- niolan authorities implemented the rules with a fair degree of consistency and some places in the conti- nental part of the province also established a system of guardhouses verifying foreigners’ passports, as is, among other things, also evident from the case of Jožef Petelin. The guards stopped Petelin at Vrhnika on the night of August 15th and 16th, 1831. Because the last entry in his passport was made on October 1st, 1830, for a journey from Idrija to Rijeka, the guards suspected that Petelin had crossed the cordon sanitaire illegally on his return from Rijeka. Because in the meantime, he worked for the stonemason Franc Josta in Ljubljana, the local authorities of Bis- tra near Vrhnika requested the Ljubljana magistrate to verify Petelin’s ‘alibi.’51 The authorities used the cordon sanitaire to seal the territories of Carniola and Carinthia as much as possible against the spread of the disease from Hun- gary and determine the border crossing points to ensure the most urgent and strictly supervised move- ments of people and goods. Cordon crossings were authorized exclusively at officially designated points, constructed for this purpose. Any other attempt at passing the cordon was considered an offence. The emperor expanded to cholera the definition of plague-related offences laid down in the Penal Code. The public was informed about the prohibition of cordon crossings and sanctions against perpetrators by priests from the pulpit.52 48 Laibacher Zeitung, Amts-Blatt October 13th, 1831, no. 123, p. 1047. 49 Laibacher Zeitung, September 27th, 1831, no. 77, p. 309. 50 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 270. 51 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 254. 52 Gesetze und Verordnungen, court decree of August 27th, 1831, no. 2525. Violations of measures against contagious diseas- es and appropriate penalties were stipulated in Em- peror Franz I’s patent of May 21, 1805.53 Pursuant to this document, in a district that disregarded an im- minent threat of contagious disease, one was found guilty of a serious offence if their actions deliberate- ly or incidentally caused the disease to spread. The most serious offences included unauthorized cordon crossing, quarantine evasion, dereliction of profes- sional duty by employees of defense institutions, and concealment of danger. An unauthorized cordon crossing was defined as an act committed by a person from a quarantined or cordoned-off area who crossed the cordon by land via unauthorized roads or by sea via unauthorized ports; crossing the cordon without notifying the competent authorities; entering the province illegally from an area suspected of infection and stating a falsified place of origin on continuing the journey; avoiding the main routes with the assistance of guides; and using forged documents or documents issued in another person’s name.54 Another punishable offence was falsifying health or quarantine passes, which served as authen- tic instruments55 confirming that a person had come from an uninfected area or completed the quarantine period and therefore did not pose any health risk. Guards were instructed to shoot at anyone cross- ing the cordon illegally and ignoring their warn- ings.56 Committing an illegal cordon crossing was punishable with five to ten years of rigorous impris- onment, and a willful intent or repetitive infringe- ment warranted the extension of the prison sentence for up to twenty years. The sentence was reduced for a cordon crossing that resulted from negligence and caused no harm.57 Violations of quarantine included any failure to undergo the complete quarantine period; establish- ing contact and socializing with healthy persons prior to the completing the quarantine period and without due supervision; transporting people and goods without the necessary health certificates and passes; giving refuge to people and goods without health certificates or authorization issued by the local authorities in areas near the cordon; hiding or concealing objects that were normally subject to cleaning; and finally, any unconscionable and hence potentially hazardous practices committed by quar- antine officials and hired aids.58 53 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 147: Franz I’s patent of May 21st, 1805. Laibacher Zeitung, September 15th, 1831, no. 74, p. 909. 54 Ibid. 55 Sanitäts- und Contumaz- Pass—health border pass. The terms Gesundheitspass, Gesundheitscertificat, and Gesundheits-Zeug- niss stand for a health certificate as well. Gesetze und Verord- nungen, court decree of July 26th, 1831, no. 2522. 56 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 147. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 191 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–1962022 Also subject to punishment was any dereliction of professional duty by employees in defense insti- tutions: an official’s failure to forward notifications and reports; a physician receiving bribery or accept- ing gifts for the work already paid; an official, tasked with supervising people and goods, allowing these entrance into the province via unauthorized roads or via authorized roads without undergoing the manda- tory quarantine, or releasing people from quarantine before the completion of the period prescribed; any official who issued health certificates disregarding the rules and any official or physician who failed to place himself under quarantine after being exposed to the possibility of infection in performing his work. Offences committed for the sake of seeking profits were punishable by rigorous imprisonment of ten to twenty years and ordinary offences by a prison sen- tence of five to ten years. Punishment for concealing offences was a prison sentence of one to five years and for especially serious circumstances of bribery rigorous imprisonment of five to ten years.59 In case of a major, life-threatening increase in violations of protective measures against a conta- gious disease, the system of summary judgements, or Standrecht, was provisionally enforced as a predeces- sor of the modern extraordinary criminal law ensur- ing a more stringent punitive policy. Due to the high likelihood of offences being committed in terms of unauthorized cordon crossing and avoiding quaran- tine, the punishment under this law was death by ex- ecution. The entry into force and the expiry of sum- mary judgements were to be officially announced.60 Thus, the United Court Chancellery issued a decree officially announcing October 1st, 1831, as the date of expiry of summary judgements in all provinces of the monarchy with cordons in place and as the date of the reintroduction of penal provisions under the applicable criminal law.61 The system of rastels62 and quarantines ... All clothes worn, and all goods shall be tidied and cleaned so as not to become sources of infection...63 The first two official cordon crossing points—or rastels—opened on August 1st, 1831, at Jesenice na Dolenjskem and Metlika.64 Due to construction de- lay, the opening date for the third rastel at Brod na Kolpi was pushed to August 15th.65 The selection of Jesenice na Dolenjskem and Metlika seemed reason- 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2262. 62 Regulated cordon passages where trade was not prohibited. 63 Potočnik, Potrebno poduzhenje sa kmeta, in the address. 64 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 122; Kobal, O koleri na Kranjskem, p. 78. 65 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fols. 122, 314. able because they were situated on the border, adja- cent to the main road connections between Carniola and Croatia or, rather, Hungary. Jesenice na Dolen- jskem stood on the trade and post road to Zagreb, which ran from Ljubljana through Zidani Most and Novo Mesto to Bregana. The road winding through Metlika was the main trade and post route, starting in Novo Mesto.66 An early opening of both rastels was of crucial importance, after the border closure with Hungary hindered the traffic on the border with Croatia and the Hungarian Littoral. To miti- gate the obstruction of traffic during the construc- tion of the rastels, the authorities opened provisional cordon crossing points to enable major shipments of wheat and cattle to enter Carniola.67 The essential task of rastels was to submit every cross-border exchange of people, goods, and objects to quarantine in the name of protecting the common good (Sicherheit des öffentlichen Wohls). Smooth traf- fic flow at Jesenice na Dolenjskem and Metlika was only ensured for the transport of ‘non-toxic’ goods, which were exempt from quarantine and could be immediately taken to the other side of the border. The definition of ‘toxic’ was laid down in Article 24 of Maria Theresa’s patent of January 2nd, 1770. The list containing 238 types of goods, ranging from crops, food products, and medicines to raw materi- als and a variety of handicrafts was also published in Laibacher Zeitung.68 The Joint Court Chancellery in Vienna urged that only the most essential trade take place at the rastels and that other business activities be limited to prevent the spread of cholera through them.69 The predominant trade at both rastels was in wheat and salt, both exempt from quarantine, and cattle, which was ‘cleaned’ by being submerged neck- deep in water. Trade days were carefully specified, and they took place on Mondays and Thursdays at Jesenice and Metlika, and on Mondays and Fridays at Brod na Kolpi. After examination, the rastel in- spection service ordered that the wheat shipped on the Sava from Croatia to Jesenice na Dolenjskem be transferred to the waiting empty vessels, which then continued the journey upstream into Carniola’s interior. Cattlemen were also changed at the border crossing.70 Apart from facilitating trade, the rastels also had a social function by connecting the population from both sides of the border, which could not cross the cordon at the time. At certain hours (between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. and between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.), people could converse, but only from a safe 66 Holz, Razvoj cestnega omrežja, p. 26. 67 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 122. 68 Laibacher Zeitung, August 4th, 1831, no. 62, pp. 245–246. 69 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2326. 70 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fols. 122, 312, 314. 192 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–196 2022 distance to prevent contagion. All activities at the rastels could only take place in daylight, from sunrise to sunset.71 Another type of preventive institutions on the border were quarantine complexes,72 which were built adjacent to the rastels. When a rastel conducted traffic control, combined with trade supervision and restriction, the quarantine facilities took in all people and goods whose passage was declined at the rastel on suspicion of originating from cholera-infected areas if they failed to present proof to the contrary. Quarantine requirements applied to all persons com- ing from infected or suspicious areas, as well as those not carrying health certificates. Quarantine was also imposed on ‘toxic’ goods and miscellaneous objects (Contumazbehandlung von Personen, Waaren und Ef- fecten). ‘Toxic’ goods, such as feathers, horsehair, bris- tle, flax, hemp, rawhides, fur, leather, linen, ropes, and cotton,73 were cleaned in quarantine. A special ex- ample was sheep wool which, although not listed as hazardous, had to be aired up to twenty days before being released from quarantine.74 At the time of major threat, the mandatory quar- antine period lasted forty days and was gradually reduced.75 On September 26th, 1831, the Illyrian Provincial Health Commission announced the re- duction of quarantine on cordons toward Hungary and Galicia from twenty to ten days.76 On October 10th, the emperor decreed quarantine to be reduced to five days across the entire monarchy, except the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia and the Littoral.77 For the lack of suitable premises, the quarantine facilities at Jesenice na Dolenjskem and Metlika had to be built anew. In doing so, the authorities were faced with many problems, especially the tight fourteen-day deadline for constructing the quaran- tine facilities.78 The construction of the quarantine facility at Jesenice was a matter of extreme urgency (Der Bau der Kontumaz-Anstalt von Jessenitz ist von der äussersten Dringlichkeit), the Ljubljana magistrate 71 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fols. 122, 312. 72 The term contumacy (Contumac, Contumazanstallt) signifies a sanitary measure to prevent the spread of a contagious dis- ease. The word quarantine derives from the Italian term quar- anta, meaning forty, because it initially lasted forty days. As a protective protocol of separating and restricting the move- ment of travelers from infected areas, and subjecting them to medical observation, quarantine is part of the system of medical measures to prevent the spread of contagious diseas- es. Quarantine was first organized in 1375 in Dubrovnik. 73 Kobal, O koleri na Kranjskem. 74 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), nos. 795, 1661, 2177. 75 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2177. 76 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 599. 77 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2413; Laibacher Zeitung, October 18th, 1831, no. 83, p. 338. 78 Laibacher Zeitung, August 4th, 1831, no. 62, p. 246. informed the district office of Ljubljana.79 Besides, apart from the shortage of construction wood on site, the authorities also had to tackle the lack of com- petent craftsmen or workers in the area and had to search for them elsewhere.80 Carpenters were there- fore hired in Ljubljana and its surroundings. As a subcontractor, the master carpenter Košir managed to find thirty carpenters in twenty-four hours, but only half of them ultimately took on work. The rea- sons most stated for refusing to take part in the con- struction of quarantine facilities was their illness, the illness of their wife and children, their wife’s preg- nancy, farm work, shortage of suitable clothing, and work contracts already concluded. Given the high percentage of refusals, this type of work was clearly not popular among craftsmen. The Ljubljana magis- trate helped Košir rent boats to ship all the necessary construction wood, tools, and hired workforce—car- penters, joiners, locksmiths, and potters—to Jesenice na Dolenjskem downstream the Sava River.81 As is evident from the inventory for the quarantine facili- ties at Jesenice, about forty persons could undergo the forty-day quarantine at a time, provided with the basic sleeping and hygiene necessities. The quar- 79 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 249. 80 Laibacher Zeitung, August 4th, 1831, no. 62, p. 246. 81 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fols. 246, 247, 249. Announcement (SI ZAL LJU 489, f. 348, fol. 200). 193 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–1962022 antine facilities were equipped with pallets, tables, stools and benches, clothes hangers, candle holders, as well as spittoons, bedpans, washbasins, water jugs, pallet covers, towels, pillows, and blankets.82 The entire procedure of ‘cleaning’ people and goods at rastel and quarantine facilities was free. However, because rastels’ employees initially charged these services and apparently intended to continue with this practice, the health authorities notified the public via circulars and the press that all activities performed at rastels and quarantine facilities were free of charge. They prohibited the collection of fees and demanded that the money already collected be returned. To reach both the employees and the pub- lic, the circulars were hung at the entrances to rastels and quarantine facilities, in offices, common areas for employees, cabins, and warehouses. For inform- ing the population at large, the circulars were also published in the provincial, Slovenian language.83 The rastel and the quarantine facility at Metlika An insight into the organization of cordon cross- ing points or the entire rastel and quarantine complex 82 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fol. 602. 83 SI ZAL LJU 489, fasc. 348, fols. 196, 200; Laibacher Zeitung, August 9th, 1831, no. 63, pp. 737–738. is offered by a plan that has been preserved for both institutions at Metlika.84 The rastel and the quaran- tine facility were built on the left bank of the border river Kolpa, adjacent to the bridge. The buildings of both institutions were, for the most part, lined along both sides of the Karlovac trade road, which ran through the center of the complex and was closed at the rastel with a double barrier. The quarantine facili- ty employed eight persons: the director Joseph Sterg- er, the physician Ignaz Lashan, the priest Andreas Tschebashegg, the scribe Alois Pauer, the guardians of goods Martin Lovich and Jochan Horlitschegg, as well as servants tasked with cleaning goods, Wenzl Kottek and Joseph Zollner.85 Viewed from the direction of Croatia or, rather, on entering Carniola after crossing the bridge on the Kolpa, the rastel ’s enclosed area stood on the right side. The rastel was divided into three parts. Three quarters of its total surface were dominated by an area surrounded by thick willow fencing, which served to house the cattle shipped from Croatia. The remaining area was occupied by two large, en- 84 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (Chol 2), no. 586: Situations Plan des Emplacements der Contumac Gebäude an der Kulp-Brücke bey Möttling. 85 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (Chol 2), no. 586: Personal – Standes Ausweis von k.k. Contumaz Direc- tion zu Möttling. The rastel and the quarantine facility at Metlika (SI AS 14, Reg. VIII, f. 36 (Chol2), no. 586). 194 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–196 2022 closed spaces of more or less equal size. The first one, with an entrance from the Karlovac Road, housed the Thirtieth Customs Office (Dreysigstamt) and on rainy days also provided shelter to sellers and buyers from Croatia. The passage leading from this area to the animal building was intended for those who had already completed their purchase and for driving the cattle down to the Kolpa. There, the animals were herded into the river and walked upstream along the riverbank, and thus ‘decontaminated’ led out of the river into an enclosure to the left of the Karlovac Road. The rastel enclosures were separated by two double barriers reinforced with wood planks stand- ing slightly less than two meters (or a fathom) apart to close the exposed part off from the road. Mounted between the two barriers were two pillared wooden funnels for transferring wheat grains and salt from the exposed part of the rastel into its interior. This is where all prohibited ‘toxic’ goods were removed. Three feet or slightly less than a meter from the in- ternal barrier, there was another barrier in the third, enclosed (unexposed) section of the rastel, where a servant cleaned smaller items transported from Croatia. This section housed the seat of the Metlika Customs Office, which was also used for smoking letters. The somewhat elevated platform of the lower part of this section was intended for Carniolan cattle buyers; the animals were showcased here, and trans- actions were concluded with sellers standing below the platform.86 Beyond the rastel, on the right side of the Karlo- vac Road, stood the tollhouse building, rearranged into the offices of the quarantine facility director and the quarantine physician. The former quaran- tine building on the left side of the Karlovac Road was converted into a guardhouse, with an adjacent wooden barn. Somewhat secluded, to the left of the road, stood the quarantine complex, connected to it by a secondary semi-circular road. The quarantine fa- cilities comprised seven wooden buildings enclosed by a tall wall. The first three were intended for dis- tinguished travelers and divided into several smaller rooms separating men and women, and they also accommodated their servants. Cabin no. 5 was an infirmary. Whenever necessary, one of the remain- ing three buildings, which ordinarily housed com- mon travelers, was converted into a sanitary unit. In addition to quarantine buildings for people, the au- thorities constructed stables for horses and carts, and warehouses. A special facility was arranged for airing goods. The last two buildings, which housed employ- ees, their common areas, drying and smoking units, as well as a quarantine tavern, were completely sepa- rated from the quarantine cabins to prevent contact between the quarantined travelers and the employ- 86 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (Chol 2), no. 586. ees. These also had their own designated entrance. Next to the quarantine complex stood a quarantine chapel and a house with adjacent agricultural build- ings owned by Mrs. Schebenig, the post mistress from Metlika.87 The impact of establishing the cordon sanitaire The border closure between Carniola and Croa- tia manifested primarily in the disruption and slow- down of trade on the one hand and the impeded movement of people on the other. The authorities advised the public to refrain from non-essential trade and other business transactions to avoid spreading cholera through commercial contacts.88 The cordon sanitaire had a direct economic impact not only on the border area, but also Carniola’s interior. Police reports issued by the local authorities under the Pos- tojna district shed light on the public opinion (Stim- mung und der herrschende Geist) regarding trade, fairs, the movement of food prices, and so on.89 They reveal that the area under the local authority of Snežnik only held three annual fairs instead of the usual seven. The first two—one envisaged to be held in Šentvid on the first Monday after St. Bartholomew’s Day (August 29th) and the other on the Bloke Pla- teau on Thursday, September 29th—did not take place because the cordon sanitaire was still valid on the date of the former and, in the case of the latter, the three days that transpired since the termination of the cordon left too little time to drive cattle from Croatia.90 The local authorities of Vipava reported an increase in cattle prices due to the impeded sales from Croatia and Hungary. Clearly terrified of the disease, people talked about the crippling fear of cholera (die gespannte Furcht von der Brechruhr). Still, the cordon alone could not have caused a decline in the economy and trade, even though it put a strain on them with partial closure and restrictions (Eine Abnahme in der Agrikultur, Industrie, im Kommerze erfolgte nicht. Aber der bevorstehende Sanität-Kordon dürfte diesfalls Einflüss äussern. Ohne Nachtheilen kann es nicht abgeben, wenn angränzende Ortschaften, Kre- ise, Provinzen im frühere freie Verkehre theils erschw- ert, theils abgespert werden).91 The local authorities of Hasberg detected an increase in salt prices, followed by a drop in the prices of wheat and other food- stuffs on the dissolution of the cordon.92 The local authorities of Senožeče noted an increase in trade 87 Ibid. 88 SI AS 14, Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII, fasc. 36 (35/Chol), no. 2326. 89 SI AS 117, Kresijski urad Postojna, fasc. 13, no. 256. 90 SI AS 117, Kresijski urad Postojna, fasc. 13, no. 256: police report of the local authorities of Snežnik. 91 Ibid., police report of the local authorities of Vipava. 92 Ibid., police report of the local authorities of Hasberg. 195 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–1962022 after re-establishing free flow of traffic with Croa- tia.93 The cordon sanitaire was somewhat injurious to the economy in the area under the local authority of Postojna, and its termination caused a significant drop in prices.94 As can be gathered from the joint report for the Postojna district, the decline in cattle trade was attributed not only to the general shortage of money but above all to the cordon sanitaire on the border. After the termination of the cordon, the entire district saw a noticeable drop in the prices of wheat and other foodstuffs and a fresh impetus to trade (Das Komerz schien nach der Aufhebung der gegen Ungarn und Kroatien bestandenen Sanitäts Cordons in etwas aufzuleben).95 Conclusion The last cordon sanitaire on the Carniolan-Cro- atian border was set up in 1831. During the ensuing cholera epidemics, five of which also reached Car- niola, the authorities took other preventive measures against contagious diseases, because not only did the cordons sanitaires fail to contain the spread of cholera, but they also posed an extremely complex organizational and financial challenge that hardly justified the effort and resources invested. The bor- der closures had an adverse impact on the immediate and wider surroundings by restricting the movement of people and goods, which was particularly injurious to trade flows and consequently caused food prices to soar. Given that during the subsequent epidem- ics the authorities changed the defense tactics and abandoned the costly system of border shutdowns, the defense against the first cholera epidemic in the monarchy also represents the last example of the classical struggle against the plague, characteristic of the eighteenth century. REFERENCES ARCHIVAL SOURCES SI AS – Arhiv Republike Slovenije AS 14 – Gubernij v Ljubljani, Reg. VIII AS 117 – Kresijski urad Postojna AS 1079 – Zbirka normalij SI ZAL – Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana LJU 489, Mesto Ljubljana, splošna mestna regi- stratura (Reg. I) 93 Ibid., police report of the local authorities of Senožeče. 94 Ibid., police report of the local authorities of Postojna. 95 Ibid., police report for the Postojna district. NEWSPAPERS Illyrisches Blatt, 1831. Laibacher Zeitung, 1831. LITERATURE AND PRINTED SOURCES Birkner, Othmar: Die bedrohte Stadt, Cholera in Wien. Wien: Franz Deuticke, 2002. Borisov, Peter: Od ranocelništva do začetkov znan- stvene kirurgije na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: SAZU, 1977. Brunton, Deborah: Dealing with disease in po- pulations: public health, 1830–1880. Medicine Transformed. Health, Disease and Society in Europe 1800–1930 (ed. Deborah Brunton). Manchester: The Open University, 2004, pp. 180–207. Eckstein, Friedrich: Die epidemische Cholera beobach- tet in Pest in den Monaten Juli, Avgust, September 1831. Pest und Leipzig, 1832. Gesetze und Verordnungen in Justi-Sache für die Deu- tschen Staaten der Oesterreichischen Monarchie von den Jahren 1831–1834. Granda, Stane: Bosanski roparji se ne bojijo voja- kov in financarjev. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja, 1800–1860 (ed. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2001, p. 174. Grmek, D. Mirko: Sanitarni kordon Vojne krajine. Medicinska enciklopedija, knjiga V. Zagreb: Leksi- kografski zavod, 1961, pp. 457–460. Holz, Eva: Razvoj cestnega omrežja na Slovenskem ob koncu 18. in v 19. stoletju. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 1994. Jankovich, Anton: Die epidemische Cholera in den Ja- hren 1817–1832, ihre Wesen, Ursache und rationelle Behandlung. Ofen, 1832. Jovin, Slavko: Epidemija kolere v Vojvodini 1831 godi- ne. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1978. Kačičnik Gabrič, Alenka: O kmečkih dolgovih nekoli- ko drugače. Problem servitutnih pravic na posestvu Snežnik. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, Arhiv Republike Slovenije, 2004 (Knji- žnica Kronike, 8). Kobal, Franc: O koleri na Kranjskem. Zbornik Slo- venske Matice, XIII, 1911, pp. 61–158. Koblar, Anton: O človeški kugi na Kranjskem. Iz- vestja muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 1, 1891, pp. 39–55. Krebs, Gertraud: Die geographische Verbreitung der Cholera in ehemaligen Oesterreich-Ungarn in den Jahren 1831–1916. Veröffentlichung aus dem Gebiete des Volksgesundheitsdienstes. LV Band, 6. Heft, Berlin 1941. Lukács, Ágnes: Az 1831–1832 évi magyarországi kolerajárváni néhány jellegzetessége. Communi- cationes ex bibliotheca historiae medicae hungarica. Budapest, 1966. 196 KATARINA KEBER: CARNIOLA’S DEFENSE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE FIRST CHOLERA EPIDEMIC IN EUROPE, 183–196 2022 Potočnik, Blaž: Potrebno poduzhenje sa kmeta, kako naj sam sebe in svoje ljudi te strashne bolesni obvaruje, v vprashanjih in odgovorih. Ljubljana, 1831. Rannegger, Harald: Die Cholera in der Steiermark 1831–1836. Diplomarbeit, Karl-Franzens-Uni- versität Graz, 1989. Schematismus für das Laibacher Gouvernements-Ge- bieth im Königreiche Illyrien, Laibach, 1831. Studen, Andrej: Prva slovenska knjižica o obrambi pred kolero. Slovenska kronika XIX. stoletja, 1800– 1860 (ed. Janez Cvirn). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2001, pp. 183–184. The Cambridge World History of Human Disease (ed. Kenneth F. Kiple). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1994, pp. 645–648. Vilfan, Sergij: Pravna zgodovina Slovencev. Ljublja- na: Slovenska matica, 1996. Žontar, Josip: Zapora proti kugi v Karavankah v letih 1713–1716. Prispevek k zgodovini blagovnega pro- meta in organizacije trgovine na Slovenskem v 18. stoletju. Tržič: Muzejsko društvo, 1957 (Knjižnica Muzejskega društva v Tržiču, 1). P O V Z E T E K Kranjski obrambni mehanizem za zaščito pred prvo epidemijo kolere v Evropi V tridesetih letih 19. stoletja je Evropa doživela prvo epidemijo azijske kolere. Do širitve bolezni iz Azije v Evropo je po vsej verjetnosti prišlo zaradi in- tenzivnejših trgovskih stikov in povečanega prometa med angleškim imperijem in Indijo oziroma zaradi angleške ekspanzije na vzhod. Ob pojavu kolere v bližini Habsburške monarhije leta 1830 je državna oblast ukrepala s takojšnjo zaporo meje. V ta namen so najprej po vzhodni meji monarhije vzpostavili sis- tem mejnih zdravstvenih kordonov, kasneje, ko se je bolezen pojavila znotraj monarhije, pa so zdravstve- ne kordone ustanavljali za zaščito posameznih dežel. Celotni sistem obrambe je temeljil na predpisih in praksi, ki so se v prejšnjih stoletjih izoblikovali v boju proti epidemijam kuge. Kranjski obrambni sistem proti koleri leta 1831 je bil del širših notranjih državnih obrambnih ukre- pov za zaščito avstrijskih dežel pred širitvijo kolere z Ogrske. Izgradnja sistema zdravstvenih kordonov, ki so se začenjali ob moravski meji z Galicijo, se je nada- ljevala ob nižjeavstrijski, notranjeavstrijski, kranjski in avstrijsko-primorski meji z Ogrsko. Zdravstveni kordon na kranjsko-hrvaški meji je bil vzpostavljen na podlagi sodelovanja okrožnih in carinskih oblasti z vojaškim poveljstvom. O velikem pomenu same za- pore meje pričajo visoke kazni za kršitelje predpisov in veljava sistema naglih sodb. Iz primera rastela in karantene pri Metliki je razvidno, da je stroga orga- nizacija tovrstnih kompleksov po eni strani omogo- čala zgolj osnovni promet z živili in živino, po drugi strani pa je močno omejevala gibanje ljudi. Zdravstveni kordon proti nalezljivim boleznim je bil na kranjsko-hrvaški meji leta 1831 vzpostavljen zadnjič. Ob naslednjih epidemijah kolere, kar pet jih je zajelo tudi Kranjsko, habsburška oblast zdravstve- nih kordonov ni več vzpostavljala. Poleg tega, da le- -ti niso uspeli zadržati širjenja kolere, so za oblasti predstavljali izredno velik organizacijski in gmotni napor, ki pa vložene energije in sredstev ni upravičil. Na bližnjo in daljno okolico je zapora meje delovala slabo zaradi oviranja siceršnjega pretoka ljudi in bla- ga, kar je zaviralno vplivalo predvsem na trgovske to- kove in posledično zviševalo cene živil. Ker so oblasti ob naslednjih epidemijah kolere spremenile taktiko obrambe in opustile drag sistem zapore meja, velja obramba proti prvi epidemiji kolere v Habsburški monarhiji hkrati tudi za zadnjo prakticiranje klasič- nega boja proti kugi, značilnega za 18. stoletje. 197 2022 SPECIAL ISSUE UDK 616-036.21:616.921.5(497.451)"1918" Katarina Keber PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Milko Kos Historical Institute, Novi trg 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana Email: katarina.keber@zrc-sazu.si Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2586-4983 Epidemic on school benches A case of Spanish flu in 1918 central Slovenia ABSTRACT The Spanish flu pandemic is considered one of the greatest catastrophes in human history. In the period of 1918– 1920, the disease infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide and, according to the most recent data, resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million. The second wave of the flu pandemic also reached the population of the Slovenian provinces between September and December 1918. Morbidity rates among pupils and teachers in Ljubljana and the wider central Slovenian area are one of the rare aspects of the epidemic that have to some degree been documented and directly point to the wide prevalence of influenza. The rates of school absenteeism varied between 16% and 75% of all pupils. The only public health measure to be implemented in Carniola during the epidemics was a one-month closure of all schools, first in Ljubljana and then in the most severely affected districts in Lower Carniola. KEYWORDS Spanish flu, children, school, pandemics, epidemics, First World War IZVLEČEK EPIDEMIJA V ŠOLSKIH KLOPEH: PRIMER ŠPANSKE GRIPE LETA 1918 V OSREDNJESLOVENSKEM PROSTORU Pandemija španske gripe velja za eno največjih katastrof v človeški zgodovini. V obdobju 1918–1920 naj bi po vsem svetu zbolelo 500 milijonov ljudi in jih po zadnjih ocenah umrlo med 50 in 100 milijoni. Drugi val pandemije gripe je med septembrom in decembrom 1918 prizadel tudi prebivalstvo v slovenskih deželah. Obolevanje učencev in učiteljev za špansko gripo v Ljubljani in v širšem osrednjeslovenskem prostoru je eno od redkih dogajanj v zvezi z epidemijo, ki je do določene mere dokumentirano in ki neposredno kaže na veliko razširjenost influence. Delež učencev, ki so manjkali pri pouku, je bil v posameznih šolah različen, in sicer v razponu 16–75 % vseh šolarjev. Edini jav- nozdravstveni ukrep na Kranjskem med epidemijo je bilo enomesečno zaprtje vseh šol najprej v Ljubljani, nato pa še v najbolj prizadetih okrajih na Dolenjskem. KLJUČNE BESEDE Španska gripa, otroci, šola, pandemije, epidemije, prva svetovna vojna 198 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–206 2022 The Spanish flu pandemic is considered one of the greatest catastrophes in human history.* In the period 1918–1920, an estimated 500 million people worldwide contracted the disease. According to the most recent data, it claimed from 50 to 100 million lives, i.e. from three to five percent of the popula- tion at the time.1 The flu spread in less than a year in three waves to almost every corner of the world. In the northern hemisphere it was first identified in spring and summer of 1918, followed by the second wave in autumn that year, and the last wave followed in spring of 1919. The death cases in the second wave of the flu, which lasted globally merely six months, were recorded in nearly all spheres of the popula- tion.2 The epidemic claimed an estimated 260,000 civilian lives in Austria-Hungary.3 The deadliest sec- ond wave of the disease started in the monarchy in September 1918, peaked in October and November, and then receded in December.4 The flu epidemic, which some authors consider as the only true suc- cessor of the 14th century plague or “black death” epidemic, surprisingly faded rapidly into the back- ground of the First World War collective memory as one of the last short episodes at its end. Physician Josip Tičar characterised it in his 1922 book entitled “Boj nalezljivim boleznim” (Fighting Infectious Dis- eases) as a “sinister companion of the Asiatic cholera and plague that threatened the widest populations of nations in their ubiquitous campaigns”.5 The gravity of influenza’s impact on the popula- tion in the Slovenian provinces is reflected in mass recordings of deaths in almost all Slovenian parish death registers. The deadly second wave of the flu reached this part of Austria-Hungary in September 1918 and subsided by December of the same year. Various contemporary indirect sources reveal the scale of infections and high mortality. Healthcare statistics on Spanish flu infections and mortality in Carniola, Steiermark, Carinthia and the Austria lit- toral are not known or have not been found, there are currently no estimates on the rate by which the populations in individual provinces were affected. The only Slovenian source-based study thus far is an undergraduate diploma by Nina Kalčič, who an- alysed the situation in the city of Ljubljana by re- searching death registers of Ljubljana’s parishes. She established that 403 people died in Carniola’s capital * The article was summarily presented at the 38th conference of the Association of Slovenian Historical Societies (Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije) – History of Education (Zgodovina izobraževanja), held at Ravne na Koroškem, 30 September 2016. The article in Slovenian language was pub- lished in Kronika 65, 2017, No. 1, pp. 67–76. 1 Johnson, Mueller, Updating the Accounts, p. 105; Opdycke, The flu epidemic of 1918, Introduction. 2 Crosby, Influenza, p. 810. 3 Schmied-Kowarzik, War Losses (Austria-Hungary), p. 8. 4 Ibid. 5 Tičar, Boj nalezljivim boleznim, p. 140. from September 1918 to February 1919 (275 deaths were caused by influenza and 128 by pneumonia). Mortality in this region, and most likely also the in- fection rate, peaked in October 1918 when 63.77% of all Spanish flu caused deaths were recorded in the city. The most relevant conclusions by Nina Kalčič are that (1) the disease mostly affected young adults and children, (2) more women than men died, and that (3) the most noticeable categories were women aged 21 to 30 and children aged under 10.6 Proper identification of deaths from death regis- ters is onerous due to the designation of the disease. In Ljubljana’s St. Jacob parish, for example, the flu had been designated as Spanish influenza, Spanish disease, Spanish hoarse disease, influenza pneumonia and pneumonia, the latter being frequently the direct cause of death in influenza patients.7 The Ljubljana Provincial Hospital’s death register contains death cause entries like pneumonia as an influenza compli- cation, employing terms such as “Spanish” pneumo- nia and “Spanish” pneumonia bilateralis.8 The official infection and morbidity statistics are unknown since influenza was not classified by the Austro-Hungarian healthcare legislation as one of those infectious diseases that physicians were re- quired to collect and report data on systematically. There is no mention of influenza in Article 1 of the Fight Against Communicable Diseases Act of 14 April 1913 (Zakon o zabrambi in zatiranju prenos- nih bolezni), which contained a reporting obliga- tion for seventeen infectious diseases.9 During the epidemic, the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of Pub- lic Health (Ministerium für Volksgesundheit) did introduce a reporting obligation for all pneumonia cases as well.10 It is, however, doubtful whether such data were actually being collected in the provinces, considering the end of the war and the imminent disintegration of the state. In any case, no such data has been found yet. This is hardly surprising since until 1918, in- fluenza was perceived throughout the world as a harmless infectious disease. There are at least three known epidemics in the 19th century: in the years 1830–1831, 1833 and 1889–1890, the latter being the first to be more accurately recorded. Although the last epidemic claimed at least 250,000 lives in 6 Kalčič, Španska gripa ali »Kadar pride žito v dobro zemljo […]«, pp. 30–31; Kalčič, Španska gripa, p. 259. According to Miha Likar’s estimates, Spanish flu claimed more than 60,000 lives on Yugoslav territories, see Likar, Usoda nalezljivih bolezni, p. 126. 7 NŠAL, ŽA Ljubljana – Sv. Jakob, Vital records (matične knjige), M 1891–1920 (transcript). 8 NŠAL, death register duplicate for the Ljubljana provincial medical parish, the parish office of the Ljubljana Provincial Hospital, year 1918. On pneumonia as a death cause of influ- enza patients see Zupanič Slavec, Razvoj javnega zdravstva, p. 227. 9 Code of laws, year 1913, No. 67. 10 SI AS 33, reg. 17/8, fasc. l. 1918, No. 35067. 199 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–2062022 Europe – more than all previous 19th century chol- era epidemics combined –, it was mostly harmful to the elderly. Influenza was therefore perceived as a harmless inconvenience.11 Studying the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic in Slo- venian provinces presents a challenge not only due to incomplete and poorly preserved healthcare docu- mentation, but also due to complex geopolitical cir- cumstances in 1918/1919. The epidemic outbreak coincided with the end of the First World War com- bined with the disintegration of Austria-Hungary and the establishment, first, the State of Slovenes, 11 Crosby, Influenza, p. 809. Croats and Serbs, and, subsequently, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. “Almost all teachers and students contracted the disease”12 The extent to which the Spanish flu was present among students and teachers is one of the few docu- mented developments during the epidemic that pro- vides direct insight into the scale of the disease, at 12 SI ZAL LJU 401, OŠ Zvonka Runka v Ljubljani, Kronika šišenske osem razredne deške ljudske šole v Ljubljani, school year 1918/1919, MF 25. Fight Against Communicable Diseases Act of 14 April 1913 (Code of Laws for the kingdoms and provinces, represented in the State Assembly, 1913). 200 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–206 2022 least in central Slovenian area. As elsewhere in the world, school children were one of the most affected population groups.13 Various sources confirm mass infections of children in schools across Ljubljana and other Carniolan districts. Apart from the preserved school chronicles for the First World War period, the epidemic data can also be found in individual school publications and preserved school records.14 Documents evidencing the presence of the flu among school children and youth in Carniola have also been preserved in the Ljubljana Provincial Government archives, mostly in the form of district administra- tion reports. It follows from the article Healthcare in Lju- bljana (Zdravstvo v Ljubljani), which is essentially a report of city physician’s office from the end of Oc- tober 1918, that it was precisely the population of school children where physicians first noticed that the flu is highly infectious: “[…] The influenza is very contagious, perhaps as much as measles, a disease that almost everyone has contracted in their lives. This infec- tious property has been demonstrated in the case of the present epidemic, in particular among school children, where one infection created a hot spot among classmates, from which the disease spread to others in such a manner that the surge of infections in every school was perceived in just a few days. Within a few days, numerous primary and secondary school pupils, up to a third or even half of children in almost every class, were absent”.15 The same article reports several thousand infections in Lju- bljana during the last three weeks of October 1918. The following categories dominated the statistics: children aged under 10, youth aged 10–20 and adults under 30. Infections of the elderly were exception- al.16 The impact of influenza on patients of the same age groups, as demonstrated by death register data collected by Kalčič, transposed into mortality. Specific data on developments in Ljubljana schools, collected by the local city physician at the beginning of October 1918 also demonstrate a high number of patients among school children.17 How- ever, since schools did not report to the physician in an uniform manner, it is not possible to establish the number of school children who fell ill. It is, nev- ertheless, possible to calculate the share of children at Ljubljana primary schools who fell ill on 2 and 3 October 1918, since the report for these schools in- cludes data on the number of all pupils for the school year 1918/1919. Accordingly, in the first few days of October there were 1.252 Ljubljana primary school 13 Phillips, Influenza pandemic, p. 4. 14 Children in other Slovenian provinces contracted the Span- ish flu as well. In Carinthia, for example, there were 26 stu- dents infected at the Prevalje school, all of whom recuper- ated. See Doberšek, Vpliv socialnih razmer, p. 95. 15 Slovenski narod, 31. 10. 1918, No. 256, p. 5. 16 Ibid. 17 SI AS 33, 17/8, 1918, box 944, No. 33040, No. 33268. pupils who fell ill, which represents 29.7% of the total (4.217). The share of pupils absent from schools var- ied across schools in Ljubljana between 16 and 75%. Although data18 for individual schools in Lju- bljana were not collected systematically, their publi- cation is relevant since they demonstrate the excep- tionally large scale of infections during the epidemic: – Ist state general upper secondary school: 3 Octo- ber, 167 students absent, half of the students in some classes, otherwise 16–20%; – IInd state general upper secondary school: 2 Oc- tober, 27% students absent, in class II.c over half, II.b one third, in other classes some students; – German general upper secondary school: 3 Octo- ber, 75% (of 18 students) of IIIrd grade students absent, 30 students of 142 total students absent; – Male teachers’ lycée: 3 October, 32 students ab- sent, one third in IInd grade, above half in grades III and IV; – City female teachers’ lycée: 1 October, 42% stu- dents absent; – Primary school: 44% pupils absent. Primary schools on 2 and 3 October 1918: – Ist city boys’ school: 151 of 595 pupils absent (25.4%); – IInd boys’ city school: 119 of 566 pupils and 3 teachers absent (21%); – IIIrd boys’ city school: 86 of 217 pupils and school master ill (39.6%); – IVth boys’ city school: 44 of 226 pupils ill (19.5%); – German boys’ city school: 107 of 237 pupils (45.1%) and 2 teachers ill; – Slovenian girls’ city school: 286 girls of 975 ab- sent (29.3 %) and 8 teachers ill; – German girls’ city school: 302 of 631 children (47.9%) and 5 teachers ill; – Boys’ primary school in Šiška: 63 boys of 354 ab- sent (17.8%); – Girls’ primary school in Šiška: 94 of 416 girls ab- sent (22.6%). 4 October: – District school of crafts: approx. one third of stu- dents ill in both classes; – Trade course at the girls’ city lycée: 15 girls ab- sent; – Ursulines’ schools, internal and external: in cer- tain classes half or third of students absent, in others a large number of girls; – The Lichtenthurn school: 16 absentees in VIIth grade, in other classes a total of 55 absentees; – The German school curatorial school: 2 teachers and 66 children ill; – German private school for boys: 42 od 143 chil- dren absent; 18 Ibid. 201 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–2062022 – The German Schulverein school in Sp. Šiška: 16 of 95 children absent. Suspension of classes The only official public healthcare measure in Carniola in relation to Spanish flu mass infections were school closures or class suspensions, first in Ljubljana and subsequently in other schools as well. Although the press reported mass infections of school children in Ljubljana already at the end of September,19 the local city physician, based on the said inquiry, ordered on 3 October the suspension of classes first in fifteen schools in Ljubljana, and sub- sequently on 5 October in additional seven schools. Classes were initially suspended until 15 October,20 and after which, due to the “widespread presence of influenza and long convalescence of patients”, the Lju- bljana city administration in agreement with the imperial-crown Provincial School Council ordered a closure of all secondary as well as public and private primary schools and kindergartens until 3 November 1918.21 The suspension of classes was reported on by the press, e.g. Slovenski narod and Učiteljski tovariš (the publication of Yugoslav teachers in Austria): “All primary and secondary schools in Ljubljana will be closed until 3 November due to the Spanish disease that is spreading very rapidly in Ljubljana.”22 Also, the start of classes at the schools for advanced crafts was postponed to 10 November due to the “widespread Spanish flu”.23 Classes were not suspended in Ljubljana only but also in schools of other districts in Carniola. On the basis of school data, several districts reported mass infections in individual towns to the Provin- cial Government in Ljubljana. The Črnomelj district administration reported that in schools in Bojanci24 and Metlika only one third of pupils attended classes on 4 October. Child infections were particularly nu- merous there, with some severe cases accompanied by pneumonia. Two teachers and 20 pupils fell ill.25 The press reported that schools in the surround- ings of Črnomelj remained closed on 12 November since “classes are impossible in the near future […]”.26 Classes resumed on 21 November in this district.27 The “Spanish” disease also caused school closures in Krško.28 19 Slovenski narod, 30. 9. 1918, No. 223, p. 5. 20 SI AS 33, 17/8, 1918, box 944, No. 33040, No. 33268; Slo- venski narod, 3. 10. 1918, p. 4. 21 SI AS 33, 17/8, 1918, box 944, No. 34024. 22 Učiteljski tovariš, 18. 10. 1918, No. 22, p. 5. 23 Slovenski narod, 18. 10. 1918, No. 241, p. 3. 24 SI AS 33, 17/8, l. 1918, box 944, No. 32139. 25 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 33103. 26 Slovenski narod, 12. 11. 1918, No. 267, p. 4. 27 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 37496. 28 Slovenski narod, 31. 10. 1918, No. 256, p. 5. Press articles and numerous reported school clo- sures in the Novo mesto district are a reflection of the high impact of the disease in that district as a whole. Press article authors noticed that in Novo mesto the influenza killed mainly women, while in (Dolenjske) Toplice it spread predominantly among children and younger women. The “Spanish” disease also spread through remote municipalities and villages. They criticized school supervisors that allowed children from infected homes to continue going to school.29 There were reports from Novo mesto that the flu was ubiquitous, with mass infections in certain families. Senior district physician Ivan Vaupotič reported that the disease had been widespread among primary school children and that there are cases among up- per secondary school students as well. Accordingly, he ordered on 7 October that the upper secondary school and primary school be closed immediately.30 The upper secondary school was closed on 9 October, initially until 23 October, which was subsequently prolonged to 7 November.31 Classes at the boys’ pri- mary school resumed on 11 November.32 Physician Vaupotič demanded that the school in Sv. Peter by Novo Mesto (Otočec) in this district be closed since 190 of 249 pupils contracted the disease, i.e. 76.3%, as well as both clergymen and the teacher.33 On 11 October, three schools in Šmihel by Novo mesto were also closed. In this town, 66 (46%) pupils at the boys’ primary school, 42 (91%) pupils at the girls’ school, and 40 (42%) students at the secondary school fell ill.34 In the four-level primary school in Trebnje the physician diagnosed 34% infections among a total of 322 pupils. By visiting them individually, he con- firmed that they all contracted the flu.35 On 16 Oc- tober, the school in Žužemberg was closed, where 79 of 346 children fell ill,36 as well as the one in Vavta vas, where 66 of 101 Ist grade students fell ill, while classes were suspended in the IInd and IIIrd grade because the senior and junior teacher contracted the disease.37 On 17 October, the school in Toplice was closed because more than half pupils fell ill.38 A day later, the school in Gabrje in Brusnice municipality was closed, not only due to the flu, but also scarlet fever and dysentery.39 In the second half of October, schools in the following villages were closed: Ore- hovica, Spodnja Nemška vas, Selo, Zagradec, Stopiče, 29 Slovenski narod, 7. 10. 1918, No. 229, p. 5; 12. 10. 1918, No. 235, p. 4. 30 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 33231. 31 Dolenjske novice, 10. 10. 1918, No. 41, p. 163; 7. 11. 1918, No. 45, p. 179. 32 Dolenjske novice, 7. 11. 1918, No. 45, p. 179. 33 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 33781. 34 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 33780. 35 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 34073. 36 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 34563. 37 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 34564. 38 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 34862. 39 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 34863. 202 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–206 2022 Ambrus, Dobrniče, Brusnice, Hinje (by Žužemberg), Bela Cerkev, Soteska, Gornja Sušica and Žvirče (by Žužemberg).40 School closures in the Novo mesto district continued in the beginning of November, for example in Mirna Peč where classes were erratic and poorly attended.41 The next schools to be closed were the ones in Št. Lovrenc – where the teacher fell ill as well –, in Črmošnjice and Dol. Karteljevo – where 70% of students fell ill–, and in Prečna, where “ab- senteeism was high and classes almost impossible”.42 School closures continued in November, in Dvor and Podgrad on 9 November. In the latter, only one tenth of pupils attended classes.43 All schools except the upper secondary school were closed in the city of Maribor as well. In the beginning of October it was established that the flu had been particularly widespread in schools. Until 5 October 140 students fell ill in the Maribor gen- eral upper secondary school, as many as 20 per class in some classes.44 The Maribor city council decided on October 19 to suspend classes in all primary and secondary schools and kindergartens until at least 27 October.45 Press articles reveal that due to the epidemic schools were being closed elsewhere around the Slo- venian provinces. In Prague, all German and Czech schools were closed (initially between 7 and 20 Octo- ber and subsequently until 4 November), while class- es at the Prague University were postponed until 21 October.46 In Budapest, schools were also closed on 4 November “due to the widespread Spanish disease”.47 The mayor of Vienna closed all primary and second- ary schools on 7 October, the city also closed all the- atres and cinemas simultaneously.48 According to the currently prevailing view with regard to the influenza epidemic, schools in Vienna were closed too late.49 In certain cities like Seckau in Steiermark schools remained closed until the end of that year.50 There were mass infections of students and teachers also in Graz where 40% infections were reported for cer- tain schools, and in some schools as many as half of the teachers fell ill. Consequently, schools in that city were closed as of 9 October, initially for three weeks and later until 4 November. According to the offi- 40 SI AS 33, 17/8, Nos. 35446, 35447, 35448, 35527, 35528, 35529, 35668, 35912, 36039, 36040, 36041, 36042, 36043, 36044. 41 SI AS 33, 17/8, No. 36445. 42 SI AS 33, 17/8, Nos. 36446, 36447, 36522, 36523. 43 SI AS 33, Nos. 36906, 36907. 44 Slovenski narod, 5. 10. 1918, No. 228, p. 5. 45 Grazer Tagblatt, 17. 10. 1918, p. 2; Marburger Zeitung, 20. 10. 1918, p. 2. 46 Grazer Tagblatt, 6. 10. 1918, p. 2; Slovenski narod, 12. 10. 1918, No. 235, p. 4; 19. 10. 1918, No. 243, p. 4. 47 Slovenski narod, 20. 9. 1918, No. 215, p. 3; 19. 10. 1918, No. 243, p. 4. 48 Grazer Tagblatt, 8. 10. 1918, p. 6. 49 Biwald et al., Spitäler, Lazarette, Hygiene, Wohlfahrt, p. 300. 50 Grazer Tagblatt, 12. 12. 1918, p. 2. cial announcement of the Graz city council, classes resumed only after all anti-influenza measures were lifted, i.e. on Monday 11 November. All public and private kindergartens, primary schools, secondary and upper secondary schools, craft schools, religious classes and dancing schools were closed in Graz. Children plays were also prohibited.51 The press re- ported on school closures in Linz,52 Villach53 and Trieste, in the latter from end of October until at least 15 November.54 In Klagenfurt, schools were closed at least until 4 November,55 while both primary schools in Voelkermarkt were closed as well.56 At least from 11 to 26 October, schools were closed in Istria,57 they closed in Zagreb on 10 October, and a day later in Osijek and Sarajevo.58 Of course, classes were erratic due to other reasons as well during the First World War. In Ljubljana it was difficult to organise classes due to the large concentration of troops in the city. It follows from school chronicles of certain schools in Ljubljana that schools organised classes during the war according to adapted curricula either only in parts of schools or in entirely different buildings, or even more buildings simultaneously, because larger school building were occupied by troops and military hospitals.59 Classes were interrupted due to other infectious diseases, for example in September 1918 due to dysentery and scarlet fever in certain villages in Dolenjska (Biška vas, Zabrdje, Stan and Stara gora).60 All schools in Vienna were closed between 14 December 1918 and 7 January 1919 due to the heating coal shortage.61 Back to school The world changed dramatically for school chil- dren during the one-month forced holiday. While they left classrooms of Austro-Hungarian schools at the beginning of October, they returned to class- rooms of the new Yugoslav state. During the suspen- sion of classes due to the Spanish flu epidemic, the First World War ended, Austria-Hungary disinte- grated and the new State of SHS emerged. Never- theless, life continued in those turbulent times de- spite the epidemic, as evidenced inter alia by school chronicles. The chronicle of an eight-grade boys’ primary school in Šiška in Ljubljana reports that, 51 Grazer Tagblatt, 6. 10. 1918, p. 2; 10. 10. 1918, p. 2; 27. 10. 1918, p. 11; 10. 11. 1918, p. 7. 52 Grazer Tagblatt, 10. 10. 1918, p. 2. 53 Grazer Tagblatt, 17. 10. 1918, p. 2. 54 Slovenski narod, 12. 10. 1918, No. 235, p. 4; Grazer Tagblatt, 11. 10. 1918, p. 3; 15. 11. 1918, p. 2. 55 Grazer Tagblatt, 12. 10. 1918, p. 3; 18. 10. 1918, p. 2. 56 Grazer Tagblatt, 20. 10. 1918, p. 3. 57 Delić, Vijesti o španjolskoj gripi, pp. 177–178. 58 Hutinec, Odjeci epidemije “španjolske gripe”, p. 231. 59 See Šimac and Keber, Patriae ac humanitati; Učiteljski tovariš, 15. 11. 1918, No. 26, p. 4. 60 SI AS 33, reg. 17/8, fasc. 1918, No. 30004. 61 Učiteljski tovariš, 13. 12. 1918, No. 28, p. 9. 203 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–2062022 although the school was closed on 29 October – a day before the proclamation of the new national government in Ljubljana – due to the Spanish flu epidemic, children and teachers attended the sol- emn procession through Ljubljana.62 More than 30,000 people attended a large patriotic manifesta- tion at Ljubljana’s Congress square.63 The event was attended by pupils and teachers of the 1st girls’ pri- mary school as well. “Dressed for the festive occasion, the girls gathered at 8am in school. They all wore Slo- venian ribbons, holding small Slovenian flags in their hands.”64 Although it has been demonstrated that mass gatherings after the armistice contributed to the spread of the Spanish flu across Europe, that cannot be claimed for the 29 October event in Lju- bljana. The Spanish flu and pneumonia mortality rate peaked in Ljubljana already mid-October and then 62 SI ZAL LJU 401, OŠ Zvonka Runka, school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 25. 63 Perovšek, Za Državo Slovencev, Hrvatov in Srbov, p. 207. 64 SI ZAL LJU 372, 1st girls’ primary school in Ljubljana, school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 22. plummeted towards mid-November.65 Consider- ing diverse forecasts on the resumption of classes in Carniola, it is probable that not all schools resumed classes on the same day, and it seems that, in addi- tion to the epidemic, it was the complex political cir- cumstances at the time that affected substantially the resumption of classes. The department of education and religion published in the 9 November edition of the newspaper Slovenski narod that classes will re- sume at secondary schools and the lycée as soon as possible, while classes at primary schools will “con- tinue according to local conditions”.66 Classes probably resumed at most schools in mid-November since the press reported on 14 November that “school classes are to be resumed these days in all schools”. Classes resumed at both lycées and the national school for crafts in Ljubljana on 18 November.67 The influenza epidemic was exhausting for much of the school population, considering also the spe- 65 Kalčič, Španska gripa, image 2, p. 260. 66 Slovenski narod, 9. 11. 1918, No. 265, p. 4. 67 Slovenski narod, 14. 11. 1918, No. 269, p. 5. Image of the Spanish influenza as a Spanish woman with a fan (Kurent, 16. 10. 1918, No. 6, enclosed). 204 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–206 2022 cific context at the end of First World War in which most of the population faced prolonged shortages of food and other basic necessities. It appears from the press articles that the Spanish flu epidemic contrib- uted to an enhanced general care for the health of children. Consequently, when schools in Ljubljana resumed classes, there were appeals in the press to in- troduce morning-only classes due to health reasons in particular. Due to the alternating morning and af- ternoon classes, children needed to “walk four times through muddy and snowy streets and soaked their al- ready poor shoes, and freeze four times in poor clothing”, which impacted their health negatively. “The youth is already suffering much due to poor nutrition, only to be now exposed to unnecessary frost as well.” In parallel, schools would be heated once daily only and aerated thoroughly in the afternoons.68 Death among students and teachers in schools in Ljubljana School chronicles of certain schools in Ljubljana contain inter alia data on the deceased students and teachers. Since influenza-related mortality statistics do not exist neither for Ljubljana nor for individual Slovenian provinces, these individual cases cannot be placed in a wider statistical context. Without statisti- cal data, the comparison of mortality between differ- ent population groups is not possible. Nevertheless, the data are valuable since they demonstrate that death was present among students and teachers in many schools. At the Polje school, 6 of the second, fifth and sixth grade died during the epidemic be- tween 5 October and 14 November. The teacher died as well. “Teachers and pupils followed the teacher to her premature grave where the headmaster gave a farewell speech in the name of teachers and students […]”.69 At the first girls’ primary school there were 300 infected pupils and 8 teachers, but they recovered by the be- ginning of November.70 The Prule school chronicle states that health was not particularly good in 1918 since pupils contracted especially the Spanish flu that caused 3 deaths of pupils in the first, third and fourth grade.71 At the school in Zalog by Ljubljana, 47 pupils and a teacher contracted the disease, and a second grade pupil died.72 At the current Valen- tin Vodnik school, one second grade pupil died.73 At 68 Slovenski narod, 19. 11. 1918, No. 273, p. 4. 69 SI ZAL LJU 391, OŠ Edvarda Kardelja Ljubljana Polje, school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 24. 70 SI ZAL LJU 372, 1st girls’ primary school in Ljubljana (at sv. Jakob), school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 22. 71 SI ZAL LJU 370, OŠ Prule, school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 21. 72 SI ZAL LJU 367, OŠ Zalog pri Ljubljani, school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 21. 73 SI ZAL LJU 230, OŠ Valentina Vodnika, school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 19. the school in Šentvid, 5/6 of children fell ill and the Spanish disease “claimed some victims among school children”.74 At the Ledina school, one pupil of the 4th grade died of the flu and two of dysentery. “Pupils laid flow- ers on the grave of their prematurely deceased colleagues and followed them together with their teachers with the school flag to their final resting place at Sv. Križ. The 1st city school joins their parents, relatives and friends in mourning.”75 It is noted in the minutes of teach- ers’ conference at the 3rd boys’ city primary school (Vrtača) that the cruel Spanish disease did not spare this school. “On 15 October, it took our senior teacher colleague who worked here for 7 years and one month. He was a calm and kind man and our dear colleague […]”.76 At the Spodnja Šiška school, almost all teachers and pupils fell ill during the epidemic as well.77 Among the most affected schools was the Sv. Stanislav school in Šentvid, where almost 200 pupils and many teachers fell ill, of which five students, one teacher, the prefect and the sister of mercy died. The newsletter of this religious school contains a precise report: “The Spanish disease broke out in the school at the beginning of October and spread extremely rapidly, although initially it did not seem dangerous. But then in the afternoon of 6 October a 4th grade pupil […] sud- denly died. On 7 October a 5th grade pupil […] died in the Ljubljana provincial hospital. On 10 October a first grade pupil […] died. On the same day, a 5th grade pupil […] died. On 11 October in the morning God summoned professor […] to eternal rest. On the same day the prefect […] died after 1 pm. On 16 October a 5th grade pupil […] died. The last victim of the mighty Spanish disease was the sister of mercy who died on 8 December.”78 Teacher and student infections during the epi- demic were also recorded in Učiteljski tovariš that published obituaries of the deceased Slovenian teachers and reports on the deceased family mem- bers of individual teachers. Regrettably, certain re- ports on the death of teachers and their family mem- bers during the epidemic do not mention the cause of death. While these cases may well be attributed to the flu, dying of other causes was not uncommon during the war. 74 SI ZAL LJU 406, OŠ Franc Rozman Stane, Ljubljana Šentvid, school chronicle of 1918/1919, MF 27. 75 SŠM, collection of documents, folder OŠ Ledina, Yearly re- port of the 1st city six-grade primary school in Ljubljana in the wartime year 1918/1919. 76 SI ZAL LJU 233, OŠ Vrtača, 3rd city boys’ primary school in Ljubljana, Minutes of the 2nd regular teachers’ conference of 27 November 1918. 77 SŠM, collection of documents, folder of the school in Sp. Šiška, school chronicle of 1939. 78 XIV. Newsletter of the religious upper secondary school of sv. Stanislav in Št. Vid by Ljubljana on the school year 1918/19, p. 16–18. Šimac and Keber, Patriae ac humanitati, p. 151. 205 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–2062022 Conclusion On the basis of the Ljubljana Provincial Govern- ment documents, the available chronicles and mate- rials of schools in Ljubljana, as well as various press reports, it can unequivocally be concluded that the Spanish flu was widely proliferated within the school population in the central Slovenian area. Almost one third of primary school students in Ljubljana fell ill in the first few days of October. The share of stu- dents who were absent due to the disease in indi- vidual schools in Ljubljana ranged from 16 to 75% of all students. The data on infections in individual schools, despite being fragmented and gathered spo- radically, clearly confirm not only the existence of the epidemic among students and teachers in Autumn of 1918, but also across all population layers at that time. School closure was one of the public health measures that existed in Austria-Hungary and the only one that Carniolan authorities implemented. In the same period, schools were closed in most neigh- bouring Austro-Hungarian regions and cities as well. However, since the influenza had been widespread already in the last week of September, it appears that this measure was implemented too late in Carniola. The world changed dramatically during the involuntary vacation for school children. While schools were closed due to the Spanish flu epidemic, the First World War ended, Austria-Hungary dis- integrated, and the new State of SHS emerged. The awareness of the mass infections and deaths during the epidemic rapidly faded away amidst the con- densed developments at the end of the First World War. The epidemic remained forgotten also as part of the collective memory of the First World War.79 REFERENCES ARCHIVAL SOURCES NŠAL – Archdiocesan archives Ljubljana ŽA Ljubljana – St. Jacob, vital records, M 1891– 1920 (transcript), Death record of the Ljubljana provincial hospital parish (duplicate), year 1918. 79 Additional articles about Spanish flu in Slovenian provinces were published in Acta Histriae review 28, 2020/1: Katarina Keber, “O španski bolezni, hripi posebne vrste”. Ljubljanska izkušnja s pandemijo španske gripe [“On a Spanish Dis- ease, a Specific Type of Flu”. Experience with the Spanish Influenca Pandemic in Ljubljana], pp. 41-58; Urška Bratož, Vojna, lakota in bolezen: Po sledeh španske gripe v Kopru [War, Femine and Disease: Tracing the Spanish Influenca in Koper], pp. 21-40 and Miha Seručnik, Pandemija Španske gripe med Kranjsko in Istro - Možnosti in omejitve digi- talnih pristopov [The Spanish Influenza Pandemic Between Carniola and Istria - Possibilities and Limitations of Digital Approaches], pp. 1-21. SI AS – Archives of the Republic of Slovenia AS 33, Ljubljana Provincial Government (1861– 1929). SI ZAL – Ljubljana Historical Archives LJU 230, Primary school Valentin Vodnik LJU 233, Primary school Vrtača LJU 367, OŠ Zalog pri Ljubljani LJU 370, OŠ Prule LJU 372, Ist girls’ primary school in Ljubljana LJU 391, OŠ Edvarda Kardelja Ljubljana Polje LJU 401, Osnovna šola Zvonka Runka in Ljub- ljana LJU 406, OŠ Franc Rozman Stane, Ljubljana Šentvid SŠM – Slovenian School Museum Documentary collection, folder OŠ Ledina, Documentary collection, folder of the school Sp. Šiška. NEWSPAPERS Dolenjske novice, 1918. Grazer Tagblatt, 1918. Kurent, 1918. Marburger Zeitung, 1918. Slovenski narod, 1918. Učiteljski tovariš, 1918. PRINTED SOURCES Code of Laws for kingdoms and provinces, represen- ted in the State Assembly, year 1913. XIVth Newsletter of the religious upper secondary school of sv. Stanislav in Št. Vid by Ljubljana on the school year 1918/19. BIBLIOGRAPHY Biwald, Brigitte et al.: Spitäler, Lazarette, Hygiene, Wohlfahrt. Im Epizentrum des Zusammenbruchs. Wien im Ersten Weltkrieg (ed. Alfred Pfoser, An- dreas Weigl). Wien: Wiener Stadt- und Landes- archiv, Wienbibliothek im Rathaus, Verein für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 2013. Crosby, Alfred W.: Influenza. The Cambridge world history of human disease (ed. Kenneth F. Kiple). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 807–811. Doberšek, Karel: Vpliv socialnih razmer na razvoj otroka na Prevaljah. Ljubljana: Slovenska šolska matica, 1929. Hutinec, Goran: Odjeci epidemije »španjolske gri- pe« 1918. godine u hrvatskoj javnosti. Radovi, vol. 38, 2006, pp. 227–242. Johnson, Niall P. A. S., Mueller, Juergen: Updating the Accounts: Global Mortality of the 1918– 206 KATARINA KEBER: EPIDEMIC ON SCHOOL BENCHES, 197–206 2022 1920 “Spanish” Influenza Pandemic. Bulletin of the History of medicine, 2002, pp. 105–115. Kalčič, Nina: Španska gripa ali »Kadar pride žito v do- bro zemljo in je ugodno vreme, tedaj je zrno veliko, zrno je debelo in močno. Ravnotako tudi influenčni bakcili. Kadar pridejo zanje ugodne razmere, tedaj se namnože in okrepe, da ne omagajo zlepa«, diplom- ska naloga, Oddelek za zgodovino FF UL, Ljub- ljana, 2001. Kalčič, Nina: Španska gripa=Spanish flu. Zdravstve- no varstvo, Y. 41, No. 7–8, 2002, pp. 257–262. Likar, Miha: Usoda nalezljivih bolezni. Ljubljana: DZS, 1981. Milovan Delić, Iva: Vijesti o španjolskoj gripi u pulj- skom dnevniku Hrvatski list. Tabula, 12, 2014, pp. 173–182. Opdycke, Sandra: The flu epidemic of 1918, America’s Experience in the Global Health Crisis. New York: Routledge, 2014. Perovšek, Jurij: Za Državo Slovencev, Hrvatov in Sr- bov. Slovenska kronika XX. stoletja 1900–1941 (ed. Marjan Drnovšek, Drago Bajt). Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2005, pp. 207–208. Phillips, Howard: Influenza Pandemic. 1914–1918- online International Encyclopedia of the First World War (ed. Ute Daniel et al.). Freie Universi- tät Berlin, Berlin 8. 10. 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.15463/ie1418.10148. Schmied-Kowarzik, Anatol: War Losses (Austria- Hungary). 1914–1918-online International En- cyclopedia of the First World War (ed. Ute Daniel et al.). Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 17. 9. 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15463/ie1418.10964. Šimac, Miha and Keber, Katarina: Patriae ac humani- tati: zdravstvena organizacija v zaledju soške fron- te. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2011. Tičar, Josip: Boj nalezljivim boleznim. Ljubljana: Ti- skovna zadruga v Ljubljani, 1922. Zupanič Slavec, Zvonka: Razvoj javnega zdravstva na Slovenskem med prvo in drugo svetovno vojno in njegov utemeljitelj dr. Ivo Pirc (1891–1967). Ljub- ljana: Inštitut za varovanje zdravja RS, 2005. P O V Z E T E K Epidemija v šolskih klopeh: primer španske gripe leta 1918 v osrednjeslovenskem pro- storu Pandemija španske gripe velja za eno največjih katastrof v človeški zgodovini. V obdobju 1918–1920 naj bi po vsem svetu zbolelo 500 milijonov ljudi in jih po zadnjih ocenah umrlo med 50 in 100 milijoni oz. od tri do pet procentov takratne svetovne populaci- je. Bolezen se je skoraj povsod po svetu v manj kot letu dni razširila v treh valovih. Na severni polobli so jo prvič zaznali spomladi in poleti leta 1918, drugi val bolezni je zajel ves svet jeseni tega leta, zadnji val je sledil spomladi leta 1919. Za Avstro-Ogrsko ve- lja ocena, da je epidemija influence zahtevala okrog 260.000 življenj civilistov. Drugi, smrtonosni val bo- lezni se je v monarhiji začel septembra leta 1918 in svoj višek dosegel v oktobru in novembru ter upadel decembra istega leta. Raziskovanje epidemije španske gripe leta 1918 v slovenskem prostoru otežujejo poleg pomanjkljive in slabo ohranjene zdravstvene dokumentacije tudi za- pletene geopolitične razmere v letih 1918/1919, saj je epidemija izbruhnila ob samem koncu prve svetovne vojne, ko je hkrati prišlo do razpada Avstro-Ogrske in nastanka najprej Države SHS, nato Kraljevine Sr- bov, Hrvatov in Slovencev. Obolevanje učencev in učiteljev za špansko gripo je eno od redkih dogajanj v zvezi z epidemijo, ki je do neke mere dokumen- tirano in ki neposredno kaže na veliko razširjenost te bolezni v slovenskem prostoru. Na ljubljanskih ljudskih šolah je bilo npr. v prvih dneh oktobra leta 1918 bolnih 1.252 učencev oz. 29,7 % vseh šolarjev. Izpad učencev pri pouku je bil v posameznih šolah različen, in sicer v razponu od 16 %–75 % vseh šo- larjev. Edini javno-zdravstveni ukrep na Kranjskem med epidemijo je bilo enomesečno zaprtje vseh šol najprej v Ljubljani, nato še v najbolj prizadetih okra- jih na Dolenjskem. Ljubljanski mestni zdravnik je zaradi množičnega obolevanja učencev in dijakov pouk prekinil 3. oktobra 1918, nato je 12. oktobra ljubljanski mestni magistrat skupaj s c. kr. Deželnim šolskim svetom odredil zaprtje vseh srednjih, jav- nih in zasebnih ljudskih šol in vrtcev do vključno 3. novembra 1918. Večina šol je s poukom spet začela sredi novembra. Za šolajoče se otroke pa se je svet med enomesečnimi prisilnimi počitnicami temeljito spremenil. Če so v začetku oktobra zapustili učilnice avstro-ogrskih šol, so se sredi novembra vrnili v šol- ske razrede nove jugoslovanske države. ISSN 0023-4923 (tiskana izdaja) ISSN 2670-6865 (spletna izdaja) UDK 94(497.4) U Brška ratož uka ekičL H onika ropej elbanM K T B Goris olec atarina eberK K