{"title":"What caused Joan of Arc's neuropsychiatric symptoms? Medical hypotheses from 1882 to 2016.","authors":"Barbara Schildkrout","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2171799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Between 1882 and 2016, the medical literature offered a variety of etiologic hypotheses to explain Joan of Arc's voices, visions, and unwavering belief that she was the instrument of God. Although Joan lived from 1412 to 1431, there is extensive primary documentation of her life, including transcripts of her testimony during the Trial of Condemnation. Once this source material was compiled and made available, physician-authors began to theorize about Joan's neuropsychiatric symptoms in the context of her remarkable achievements. This article summarizes all papers written by physician-authors about Joan of Arc. The historical flow of diagnostic speculation in the medical literature reflects the cultural context in which it was produced as well as the emergence of novel ideas and new technologies in psychiatry, neurology, and neuropsychiatry. The early literature offered psychological theories and addressed the question of whether Joan was sane. The later literature focused on the possibility that Joan might have had epilepsy, with discussions of seizure etiology and possible cerebral focus, and also reflections on the purview of science as well as spirituality and the brain. This article offers the first comprehensive review of the medical literature about Joan of Arc, making this scholarship more accessible.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 3","pages":"332-356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2023.2171799","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Between 1882 and 2016, the medical literature offered a variety of etiologic hypotheses to explain Joan of Arc's voices, visions, and unwavering belief that she was the instrument of God. Although Joan lived from 1412 to 1431, there is extensive primary documentation of her life, including transcripts of her testimony during the Trial of Condemnation. Once this source material was compiled and made available, physician-authors began to theorize about Joan's neuropsychiatric symptoms in the context of her remarkable achievements. This article summarizes all papers written by physician-authors about Joan of Arc. The historical flow of diagnostic speculation in the medical literature reflects the cultural context in which it was produced as well as the emergence of novel ideas and new technologies in psychiatry, neurology, and neuropsychiatry. The early literature offered psychological theories and addressed the question of whether Joan was sane. The later literature focused on the possibility that Joan might have had epilepsy, with discussions of seizure etiology and possible cerebral focus, and also reflections on the purview of science as well as spirituality and the brain. This article offers the first comprehensive review of the medical literature about Joan of Arc, making this scholarship more accessible.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.