Pub Date : 2024-06-10DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2024.2362110
Ariane St-Denis, Rami Massie
In the scientific world, Professor Jean-Martin Charcot is known for his contribution to the establishment of the anatomo-clinical method in neurology in Paris at the Salpêtrière hospital. However, media attention in the late 1800s has focused on his work on hysteria. In this article, we aim to review how he has been depicted in two recent French movies: Augustine (2012) and Le Bal des Folles (The Mad Women's Ball) (2021). We will compare his image in those two films to articles at the time of his death and contrast how he is represented in other biographical works. Both in the newspapers and in the movies, Charcot's public lessons and experimental work on hypnosis in hysteria are put forward. The two movies offer a new perspective, as both directors were women, and both movies focus on a woman patient's journey at La Salpêtrière. His depiction remains superficial in Le Bal des Folles, portraying a cold, insensitive, and despotic approach to patients. He plays a more central role in Augustine, in which he develops intimacy with one of his patients and a more human and caring side is displayed, in parallel to his authoritative and meticulous figure. Both movies refer to him as a divine authority, but they also allude to his scientific method. In summary, Charcot's recent representations in cinema add a woman's perspective to life under Charcot at La Salpêtrière, which continues to shape further the image we have of this founder of modern neurology.
在科学界,让-马丁-沙尔科教授因其在巴黎萨尔佩特里耶尔医院建立神经病学解剖临床方法的贡献而闻名于世。然而,19 世纪晚期媒体关注的焦点却集中在他对癔病的研究上。在本文中,我们将回顾他在最近两部法国电影中的形象:《奥古斯丁》(2012 年)和《疯女人舞会》(2021 年)。我们将把他在这两部电影中的形象与他去世时的文章进行比较,并对比他在其他传记作品中的形象。在报纸和电影中,沙尔科的公开课和催眠治疗癔病的实验工作都得到了介绍。两部电影提供了一个新的视角,因为两位导演都是女性,而且两部电影都聚焦于一位女病人在萨尔佩特利耶的旅程。在《Le Bal des Folles》中,他对病人的刻画依然肤浅,表现出冷漠、麻木和专横的态度。在《奥古斯丁》中,他扮演了一个更为重要的角色,在这部影片中,他与一位病人建立了亲密的关系,展现出更多人性和关怀的一面,与他的权威和一丝不苟的形象并行不悖。两部电影都将他视为神圣的权威,但同时也暗指他的科学方法。总之,近期电影中对沙尔科的表现为沙尔科在萨尔佩特里耶的生活增添了女性视角,这将继续进一步塑造这位现代神经学奠基人的形象。
{"title":"Charcot and recent French cinema.","authors":"Ariane St-Denis, Rami Massie","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2024.2362110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2024.2362110","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the scientific world, Professor Jean-Martin Charcot is known for his contribution to the establishment of the anatomo-clinical method in neurology in Paris at the Salpêtrière hospital. However, media attention in the late 1800s has focused on his work on hysteria. In this article, we aim to review how he has been depicted in two recent French movies: <i>Augustine</i> (2012) and <i>Le Bal des Folles</i> (<i>The Mad Women's Ball</i>) (2021). We will compare his image in those two films to articles at the time of his death and contrast how he is represented in other biographical works. Both in the newspapers and in the movies, Charcot's public lessons and experimental work on hypnosis in hysteria are put forward. The two movies offer a new perspective, as both directors were women, and both movies focus on a woman patient's journey at La Salpêtrière. His depiction remains superficial in <i>Le Bal des Folles</i>, portraying a cold, insensitive, and despotic approach to patients. He plays a more central role in <i>Augustine</i>, in which he develops intimacy with one of his patients and a more human and caring side is displayed, in parallel to his authoritative and meticulous figure. Both movies refer to him as a divine authority, but they also allude to his scientific method. In summary, Charcot's recent representations in cinema add a woman's perspective to life under Charcot at La Salpêtrière, which continues to shape further the image we have of this founder of modern neurology.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141302024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-04DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2024.2344418
Olivier Walusinski
Jean-Martin Charcot is considered the founding father of modern neurology. There are many general and specialized biographies about him, the result being that a new text is unexpected or would likely amount to plagiarism. However, part of the duties for Charcot's medical professorship have not, to date, been studied at all. This article will focus on the role of Charcot as a member of doctorate juries and, in particular, as the president of these juries. I have reviewed around 12,500 theses one by one. These were defended at the Paris medical school from 1862, Charcot's first year as an agrégé (assistant professor), to his death in 1893. Among the theses, I have selected all of those that discuss neuropsychiatry in the broadest terms (3,663). I have paid particular attention to all of those for which Charcot was part of the jury. This involves 608 theses. All of the data were entered in a database (Filemaker) to facilitate identifying those theses corresponding to one or more of the criteria. Statistical comparisons were then carried out (Excel spreadsheet). In addition to these results, brief individualized surveys were conducted on theses selected for their representativeness, either for the subject matter (multiple sclerosis, aphasia, tabes, general paralysis, etc.) or for specific criteria (foreigners, women, etc.), but all of the theses were defended before a jury that included Charcot. This makes it possible to track how the areas of study in the medical world changed over time, and particularly those of Charcot. The juries Charcot was obliged to be a part of, without any particular ties to the candidate and/or any involvement in the selection and supervision of the work, must be differentiated from the thesis juries for his students. In the latter case, the thesis subjects were most often linked to Charcot's researches. Providing a thesis subject was motivated, in certain cases, by the desire to disseminate new data in the medical profession, not only by dint of the theses themselves but also through the reports that the medical press published regularly (e.g. the diagnosis of various types of shaking) and through the commercial publication of these data, in some cases with a preface by Charcot. In other cases, the thesis was a step in the long process of developing a theory (hysteria). Or it led to a flowering of new ideas, insufficiently proven, which Charcot would only cover in his Lessons once there was convincing confirmation (amyotrophy). This rich cornucopia gives rise to certain neglected nuggets, as well as works that have entered the classical corpus-for example, the theses of Léopold Ordenstein, Ivan Poumeau, Isaac Bruhl, Albert Gombault, and Pierre Janet.
{"title":"Jean-Martin Charcot, member of thesis juries at the Paris medical school (1862-1893).","authors":"Olivier Walusinski","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2024.2344418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2024.2344418","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Jean-Martin Charcot is considered the founding father of modern neurology. There are many general and specialized biographies about him, the result being that a new text is unexpected or would likely amount to plagiarism. However, part of the duties for Charcot's medical professorship have not, to date, been studied at all. This article will focus on the role of Charcot as a member of doctorate juries and, in particular, as the president of these juries. I have reviewed around 12,500 theses one by one. These were defended at the Paris medical school from 1862, Charcot's first year as an <i>agrégé</i> (assistant professor), to his death in 1893. Among the theses, I have selected all of those that discuss neuropsychiatry in the broadest terms (3,663). I have paid particular attention to all of those for which Charcot was part of the jury. This involves 608 theses. All of the data were entered in a database (Filemaker) to facilitate identifying those theses corresponding to one or more of the criteria. Statistical comparisons were then carried out (Excel spreadsheet). In addition to these results, brief individualized surveys were conducted on theses selected for their representativeness, either for the subject matter (multiple sclerosis, aphasia, tabes, general paralysis, etc.) or for specific criteria (foreigners, women, etc.), but all of the theses were defended before a jury that included Charcot. This makes it possible to track how the areas of study in the medical world changed over time, and particularly those of Charcot. The juries Charcot was obliged to be a part of, without any particular ties to the candidate and/or any involvement in the selection and supervision of the work, must be differentiated from the thesis juries for his students. In the latter case, the thesis subjects were most often linked to Charcot's researches. Providing a thesis subject was motivated, in certain cases, by the desire to disseminate new data in the medical profession, not only by dint of the theses themselves but also through the reports that the medical press published regularly (e.g. the diagnosis of various types of shaking) and through the commercial publication of these data, in some cases with a preface by Charcot. In other cases, the thesis was a step in the long process of developing a theory (hysteria). Or it led to a flowering of new ideas, insufficiently proven, which Charcot would only cover in his <i>Lessons</i> once there was convincing confirmation (amyotrophy). This rich cornucopia gives rise to certain neglected nuggets, as well as works that have entered the classical corpus-for example, the theses of Léopold Ordenstein, Ivan Poumeau, Isaac Bruhl, Albert Gombault, and Pierre Janet.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141248708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-28DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2024.2348421
Peter J Koehler
Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) is known to have possessed interesting works of art, e.g. Jan Steen's Marriage at Cana. In 1899, his pupil and colleague Henry Meige (1866-1940) wrote that Charcot had been interested in a painting (after a drawing) by Bruegel, named Les Arracheurs de Pierres de Teste. At the time the painting belonged to Charcot's contemporary Ernest Mesnet (1825-1898). When Charcot visited Mesnet, he offered him a considerable amount of money. The owner did not want to sell it, but promised to leave it to Charcot in his will. As Charcot died earlier than Mesnet, the painting went to the latter's heirs. In 1899, it was possessed by dermatologist dr. Paul de Molènes-Mahon (b. 1857). Meige published an article, in which he criticized the quality of the copy. Surgeon Henri Gaudier (1866-1942) wrote about the original painting in the Museum of St. Omer and confirmed Meige's opinion about the copy. I will illustrate the St. Omer painting and describe Meige's and Gaudier's comments by comparing it with the black & white copy in Meige's 1899 article. My study looks at Charcot as a collector of paintings, which is a minimally studied topic. He may have been interested in the Paris Bruegel copy for clinical and medical-historical reasons, rather than on aesthetic grounds.
让-马丁-沙尔科(Jean-Martin Charcot,1825-1893 年)拥有许多有趣的艺术作品,例如扬-斯泰恩(Jan Steen)的《迦拿的婚礼》(Marriage at Cana)。1899 年,他的学生和同事亨利-梅杰(Henry Meige,1866-1940 年)写道,沙尔科对勃鲁盖尔的一幅名为《Les Arracheurs de Pierres de Teste》的油画(根据一幅素描)很感兴趣。当时,这幅画属于沙尔科的同时代人欧内斯特-梅斯内(Ernest Mesnet,1825-1898 年)。当夏尔科拜访梅斯内时,他给了他一大笔钱。画的主人不想卖画,但答应在遗嘱中将画留给沙尔科。由于沙尔科比梅斯内死得早,这幅画就归了后者的继承人。1899 年,皮肤科医生保罗-德-莫莱纳斯-马洪(Paul de Molènes-Mahon,生于 1857 年)拥有了这幅画。梅杰发表了一篇文章,批评了临摹作品的质量。外科医生亨利-高迪埃(Henri Gaudier,1866-1942 年)撰文介绍了圣奥美博物馆中的原画,并证实了梅杰对复制品的看法。我将为这幅圣奥马尔画作绘制插图,并通过将其与梅杰 1899 年文章中的黑白摹本进行比较来描述梅杰和高迪耶的评论。我的研究着眼于沙尔科作为绘画收藏家的身份,而这是一个很少有人研究的话题。他之所以对巴黎勃鲁盖尔的复制品感兴趣,可能是出于临床和医学史方面的原因,而非审美方面的原因。
{"title":"The stone of madness: Charcot's interest in a copy after Pieter Bruegel Sr. as referred to by Henry Meige.","authors":"Peter J Koehler","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2024.2348421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2024.2348421","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) is known to have possessed interesting works of art, e.g. Jan Steen's <i>Marriage at Cana</i>. In 1899, his pupil and colleague Henry Meige (1866-1940) wrote that Charcot had been interested in a painting (after a drawing) by Bruegel, named <i>Les Arracheurs de Pierres de Teste</i>. At the time the painting belonged to Charcot's contemporary Ernest Mesnet (1825-1898). When Charcot visited Mesnet, he offered him a considerable amount of money. The owner did not want to sell it, but promised to leave it to Charcot in his will. As Charcot died earlier than Mesnet, the painting went to the latter's heirs. In 1899, it was possessed by dermatologist dr. Paul de Molènes-Mahon (b. 1857). Meige published an article, in which he criticized the quality of the copy. Surgeon Henri Gaudier (1866-1942) wrote about the original painting in the Museum of St. Omer and confirmed Meige's opinion about the copy. I will illustrate the St. Omer painting and describe Meige's and Gaudier's comments by comparing it with the black & white copy in Meige's 1899 article. My study looks at Charcot <i>as a collector of paintings</i>, which is a minimally studied topic. He may have been interested in the Paris Bruegel copy for clinical and medical-historical reasons, rather than on aesthetic grounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141162902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2024.2342306
Spencer Weig
Thomas Hun (1808-1896)-along with his sons Edward (1842-1880) and Henry (1854-1924)-were prime movers in establishing the clinical practice and academic discipline of neurology in the Hudson River Valley of New York in the ninteenth and early-twentieth centuries. This article outlines the life of the family's semi-aristocratic patriarch, beginning with Thomas's unusual educational background and his six-year post-graduate hiatus in Paris of the 1830s, where he came under the influence of P. C. A. Louis (1787-1872). It lays out his subsequent career as professor of the Institutes of Medicine and ultimately as dean of an American medical school that was not situated in a major metropolis. It also will demonstrate how Thomas Hun's career as a medical practitioner, academician, neurophilosopher, and "proto-neurologist" recapitulates the evolution of clinical and academic neurology in nineteenth-century America.
托马斯-亨(Thomas Hun,1808-1896 年)与他的两个儿子爱德华(Edward,1842-1880 年)和亨利(Henry,1854-1924 年)在十九世纪和二十世纪初是纽约哈德逊河流域建立神经病学临床实践和学术学科的主要推动者。本文概述了这位半贵族家族族长的一生,首先介绍了托马斯不同寻常的教育背景,以及他 19 世纪 30 年代在巴黎的六年研究生生涯,在那里他受到了 P. C. A. 路易(1787-1872 年)的影响。该书介绍了他后来作为医学院教授的职业生涯,以及他最终成为一所并非位于大都市的美国医学院院长的经历。它还将展示托马斯-亨作为医生、学者、神经哲学家和 "原神经学家 "的职业生涯是如何再现十九世纪美国临床和学术神经学的演变过程的。
{"title":"Henry Hun and his family: Three foundational stories in the history of nineteenth-century American neurology, Part I. Thomas Hun (1808-1896): Nineteenth-century patriarch, neurophilosopher, and proto-neurologist.","authors":"Spencer Weig","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2024.2342306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2024.2342306","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Thomas Hun (1808-1896)-along with his sons Edward (1842-1880) and Henry (1854-1924)-were prime movers in establishing the clinical practice and academic discipline of neurology in the Hudson River Valley of New York in the ninteenth and early-twentieth centuries. This article outlines the life of the family's semi-aristocratic patriarch, beginning with Thomas's unusual educational background and his six-year post-graduate hiatus in Paris of the 1830s, where he came under the influence of P. C. A. Louis (1787-1872). It lays out his subsequent career as professor of the Institutes of Medicine and ultimately as dean of an American medical school that was not situated in a major metropolis. It also will demonstrate how Thomas Hun's career as a medical practitioner, academician, neurophilosopher, and \"proto-neurologist\" recapitulates the evolution of clinical and academic neurology in nineteenth-century America.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140856626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-25DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2024.2336464
Richard Leblanc
This article addresses the discrepancy between Edouard Hitzig's and David Ferrier's findings on the cortical localization of movements in animals and Jean-Martin Charcot's findings in humans. The results of Hitzig's and Ferrier's vivisections were criticized by experimentalists in England and France as discordant, irreproducible, and inconclusive, and they were rejected by clinicians as irrelevant. Charcot addressed the gap between animal and human motor function by correlating motor deficits and focal epileptic seizures in patients to their autopsy findings. By this method he discovered the functional organization of the human motor cortex and produced the first accurate human motor brain map. Ferrier, William Osler, and Hughlings Jackson acknowledged Charcot's findings, and his findings guided the first neurosurgeons in localizing and resecting intracranial mass lesions presenting with focal epileptic seizures. Although his contributions in these fields have been neglected by modern historians, Charcot made significant contributions to the neurobiology of the human motor system, to epileptology, and to the birth of modern neurosurgery.
{"title":"Against vivisection: Charcot and Pitres' discovery of the human motor cortex and the birth of modern neurosurgery and of the surgical treatment of epilepsy.","authors":"Richard Leblanc","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2024.2336464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2024.2336464","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the discrepancy between Edouard Hitzig's and David Ferrier's findings on the cortical localization of movements in animals and Jean-Martin Charcot's findings in humans. The results of Hitzig's and Ferrier's vivisections were criticized by experimentalists in England and France as discordant, irreproducible, and inconclusive, and they were rejected by clinicians as irrelevant. Charcot addressed the gap between animal and human motor function by correlating motor deficits and focal epileptic seizures in patients to their autopsy findings. By this method he discovered the functional organization of the human motor cortex and produced the first accurate human motor brain map. Ferrier, William Osler, and Hughlings Jackson acknowledged Charcot's findings, and his findings guided the first neurosurgeons in localizing and resecting intracranial mass lesions presenting with focal epileptic seizures. Although his contributions in these fields have been neglected by modern historians, Charcot made significant contributions to the neurobiology of the human motor system, to epileptology, and to the birth of modern neurosurgery.","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140656481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-15DOI: 10.1080/0964704x.2024.2336463
Douglas J. Lanska
This article examines disagreements among three giants of twentieth-century American neurology: Raymond Adams, Joseph Foley, and Abraham Baker. The disagreements Adams and Foley had with Baker conc...
{"title":"The conflicts of Ray Adams and Joe Foley with Abe Baker: The neurology and neuropathology of liver failure (1949–1963) and the founding of the American Academy of Neurology (1948)","authors":"Douglas J. Lanska","doi":"10.1080/0964704x.2024.2336463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704x.2024.2336463","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines disagreements among three giants of twentieth-century American neurology: Raymond Adams, Joseph Foley, and Abraham Baker. The disagreements Adams and Foley had with Baker conc...","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140574503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-10DOI: 10.1080/0964704x.2024.2324806
Benedikt Pleuhs, Sanjeev D. Nandedkar, Hendrikus G. Krouwer, Paul E. Barkhaus
Walter Eichler (1904–1942) performed the first in situ nerve conduction studies in humans. Eichler’s work has been largely overlooked and there have been no biographical accounts written of him. Hi...
{"title":"Walter Eichler and his role in the development of electroneurography","authors":"Benedikt Pleuhs, Sanjeev D. Nandedkar, Hendrikus G. Krouwer, Paul E. Barkhaus","doi":"10.1080/0964704x.2024.2324806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704x.2024.2324806","url":null,"abstract":"Walter Eichler (1904–1942) performed the first in situ nerve conduction studies in humans. Eichler’s work has been largely overlooked and there have been no biographical accounts written of him. Hi...","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140574514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-02-12DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2023.2298907
Jonathan Pollock, Mariam Awan, Jonathan Benjamin, Lauren Harris
The emergence of neurosurgery from the practice of cranial surgery between the eighteenth and the twentieth centuries in London, UK, is well documented, including the role of Sir Victor Horsley, the first neurosurgical appointee at the National Hospital Queen Square in 1886. The process of this transition elsewhere in London and the subsequent foundation of other neurosurgical units are less well described. In East London, the status of St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Barts) as the oldest London hospital still active on its original site and its comprehensive archives allow an unusually long history of surgical practice in the specialty to be studied. Using these archives and other primary and secondary sources, this article describes the transition of cranial surgery in East London from the general surgeons, limited to the treatment of brain and skull injury, to the specialized discipline of neurosurgery. We discuss the culmination of this process in the foundation of three neurosurgical units at London Hospital, Whitechapel, by Sir Hugh B. Cairns from 1927; at Barts Hospital, Smithfield, by John E. A. O'Connell from 1937; and at Oldchurch Hospital, Romford, by Leslie C. Oliver from 1945. Two modern neurosurgical units, in Whitechapel and Romford, have taken forward the work begun by this group.
十八世纪至二十世纪期间,神经外科在英国伦敦从颅脑外科中脱颖而出,其中包括维克多-霍斯利(Victor Horsley)爵士的作用,他是1886年皇后广场国立医院任命的第一位神经外科医生。关于伦敦其他地区的这一转变过程以及随后成立的其他神经外科单位的描述则较少。在东伦敦,圣巴塞洛缪医院(巴兹医院)是伦敦最古老的医院,目前仍在其原址开展业务,其全面的档案资料为研究该专科的外科实践提供了异常悠久的历史。本文利用这些档案及其他主要和次要资料来源,描述了东伦敦颅脑外科从仅限于治疗脑部和颅骨损伤的普通外科医生向神经外科这一专业学科的转变过程。我们讨论了这一过程的顶峰,即 1927 年休-B-凯恩斯爵士(Sir Hugh B. Cairns)在白教堂伦敦医院(London Hospital, Whitechapel)、1937 年约翰-E-A-奥康奈尔(John E. A. O'Connell)在史密斯菲尔德巴茨医院(Barts Hospital, Smithfield)以及 1945 年莱斯利-C-奥利弗(Leslie C. Oliver)在罗姆福德奥尔德查奇医院(Oldchurch Hospital, Romford)建立的三个神经外科单位。位于白教堂和罗姆福德的两家现代化神经外科单位继承了这一团队开创的工作。
{"title":"The transition from cranial surgery to neurosurgery in East London, 1760-1960.","authors":"Jonathan Pollock, Mariam Awan, Jonathan Benjamin, Lauren Harris","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2298907","DOIUrl":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2298907","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emergence of neurosurgery from the practice of cranial surgery between the eighteenth and the twentieth centuries in London, UK, is well documented, including the role of Sir Victor Horsley, the first neurosurgical appointee at the National Hospital Queen Square in 1886. The process of this transition elsewhere in London and the subsequent foundation of other neurosurgical units are less well described. In East London, the status of St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Barts) as the oldest London hospital still active on its original site and its comprehensive archives allow an unusually long history of surgical practice in the specialty to be studied. Using these archives and other primary and secondary sources, this article describes the transition of cranial surgery in East London from the general surgeons, limited to the treatment of brain and skull injury, to the specialized discipline of neurosurgery. We discuss the culmination of this process in the foundation of three neurosurgical units at London Hospital, Whitechapel, by Sir Hugh B. Cairns from 1927; at Barts Hospital, Smithfield, by John E. A. O'Connell from 1937; and at Oldchurch Hospital, Romford, by Leslie C. Oliver from 1945. Two modern neurosurgical units, in Whitechapel and Romford, have taken forward the work begun by this group.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139724758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-01-04DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2023.2288208
Arwa Ibrahim
Although the history of treating headaches spans thousands of years, scientists during the tenth century made unique and significant contributions to understanding, treating, and preventing the development of headaches. In fact, the tenth century saw the ability to differentiate between types of headache and treatments for the first time. This article looks at the contributions of Persian, Anglo-Saxon, and Chinese medicine to the diagnosis and treatment of different types of headaches in the tenth century. It does so with reference to a range of herbal, surgical, and pharmacological methods of treating this ailment. The article also uncovers how tenth-century herbal remedies were effective at explaining the properties of their ingredients in modern terms and concepts including analgesia, anti-inflammation, and antinociception, and explores the way tenth-century treatments relieved painful headaches and prevented their recurrence.
{"title":"An overview of headache treatments during the tenth century.","authors":"Arwa Ibrahim","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2288208","DOIUrl":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2288208","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the history of treating headaches spans thousands of years, scientists during the tenth century made unique and significant contributions to understanding, treating, and preventing the development of headaches. In fact, the tenth century saw the ability to differentiate between types of headache and treatments for the first time. This article looks at the contributions of Persian, Anglo-Saxon, and Chinese medicine to the diagnosis and treatment of different types of headaches in the tenth century. It does so with reference to a range of herbal, surgical, and pharmacological methods of treating this ailment. The article also uncovers how tenth-century herbal remedies were effective at explaining the properties of their ingredients in modern terms and concepts including analgesia, anti-inflammation, and antinociception, and explores the way tenth-century treatments relieved painful headaches and prevented their recurrence.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2023-11-08DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2023.2266456
Mervyn J Eadie
On November 8, 1923, William John Adie described an unusual disorder to the Section of Neurology of the Royal Society of Medicine. The condition comprised frequent momentary stereotyped impairments of consciousness that occurred in children, did not respond to antiseizure medications, and did not develop into epilepsy, as that term was then commonly understood, since no convulsive seizures occurred. After some time, the episodes terminated spontaneously, leaving the sufferer unhandicapped and neurologically intact. Almost certainly, Adie had described the present-day entity of childhood absence epilepsy. He termed it "pyknolepsy," knowing that the name "pyknolepsie" had been used for a similar disorder in Germany from 1916 onwards, though not reported elsewhere. Following Adie's account, published in 1924, reports of the disorder appeared in the English and French-language literature and continued to be published in German. It became increasingly accepted that pyknolepsy was a form of epilepsy that was part of Lennox's petit mal triad. The word pyknolepsy itself never became widely used and is now largely forgotten. Adie never took up the topic in print again. However, he had awakened English-language readers to one component in a broadening of the concept of what constituted epilepsy.
{"title":"W. J. Adie and his \"pyknolepsy,\" a century ago.","authors":"Mervyn J Eadie","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2266456","DOIUrl":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2266456","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On November 8, 1923, William John Adie described an unusual disorder to the Section of Neurology of the Royal Society of Medicine. The condition comprised frequent momentary stereotyped impairments of consciousness that occurred in children, did not respond to antiseizure medications, and did not develop into epilepsy, as that term was then commonly understood, since no convulsive seizures occurred. After some time, the episodes terminated spontaneously, leaving the sufferer unhandicapped and neurologically intact. Almost certainly, Adie had described the present-day entity of childhood absence epilepsy. He termed it \"pyknolepsy,\" knowing that the name \"pyknolepsie\" had been used for a similar disorder in Germany from 1916 onwards, though not reported elsewhere. Following Adie's account, published in 1924, reports of the disorder appeared in the English and French-language literature and continued to be published in German. It became increasingly accepted that pyknolepsy was a form of epilepsy that was part of Lennox's petit mal triad. The word pyknolepsy itself never became widely used and is now largely forgotten. Adie never took up the topic in print again. However, he had awakened English-language readers to one component in a broadening of the concept of what constituted epilepsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71523220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}