Journal of the History of the Neurosciences最新文献

During 1881-1895, a small number of male patients-18 in total-were diagnosed with hysteria at the University of Tartu Psychiatric Hospital. Rather than constituting an obscure psychiatric institution on the margins of European medical traditions, Tartu during these years witnessed the arrival of several influential psychiatrists: Hermann Emminghaus (1845-1904), Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926), and Vladimir Chizh (1855-1922). Yet, when comparing patient case records of male hysteria written by doctors who also published journal articles and medical textbooks on the topic, one can detect a clear inconsistency between the theory and practice of psychiatry at an important moment of its formation. Contrary to the simplified characterizations in the textbooks, there was no uniform formulation of male hysteria in the case records. The clinical description differed remarkably, throughout the career of individual doctors, between symptomology presented in a textbook and clinical picture described in a patient record, and between different doctors who practiced in the same clinic during this 15-year period. This study highlights the importance of using patient case records in conjunction with a formal medical treatise to provide new insights and nuances to the intellectual history of hysteria, but also other diagnoses and clinical practice more broadly.

In his teaching, Charcot often used artistic representations from previous centuries to illustrate the historical developments of various conditions, particularly hysteria, mainly with the help of his pupil Paul Richer. Charcot liked to draw portraits and sketches of colleagues during boring faculty meetings and students' examinations, including caricatures of himself and others, church sculptures, landscapes, soldiers, and so on. He also used this skill in his clinical and scientific work. He drew histological or anatomic specimens, as well as patients' features and demeanor. His most daring artistic experiments were drawing under the influence of hashish. Charcot's tastes in art were conservative; he displayed little interest for the avant-gardes of his time, including impressionism, or for contemporary musicians, such as César Franck or Hector Berlioz. The pamphleteer Léon Daudet described Charcot's home as a pseudo-gothic kitsch accumulation of heteroclite pieces of furniture and materials. However, he taught medicine not only as a science but also as an art, a style that has now been almost universally forgotten.

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.

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.

Much has been written, mostly in overly critical terms, about Jean-Martin Charcot's use of images in his hysteria research. Besides the images of patients Charcot produced for his clinical research, one other image has preoccupied present-day scholars-André Brouillet's painting Une leçon clinique à la Salpêtrière. Unveiled at the 1887 Salon in Paris, this life-sized painting depicts Charcot lecturing on hysteria to his male audience while presenting a swooning female patient. For many present-day critics, Brouillet's painting symbolizes Charcot's purported misuse of his female hysteria patients. Contrary to such interpretations, this article shows that Brouillet's painting did not merely serve as an iconic visual representation of Charcot's hysteria research but was also used by Charcot as an active epistemic tool in his research on hysterical amnesia. Through a close reading of Charcot's only published lecture on hysterical amnesia, which he held on December 22, 1891, I analyze the process through which Charcot generated new medical insights into hysterical amnesia. I thereby trace the decisive role that Une leçon clinique played in this process.

Scholars usually consider the Historia anatomica corporis humani, published in 1600 by André du Laurens, as an obsolete defense of Galenic principles against the novelty of Vesalian material. Although du Laurens's book plagiarized many illustrations from Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica (1543), critics such as Choulant insisted that the Historia's iconography had "no particular anatomical or artistic value." However, four of the Historia's engravings appear to be original. One of these, the Tabula hæc veram spinalis medullae et nervorum ab ea prodeuntium effigiem exprimit, is now famous for depicting the intradural spinal nerves as a horsetail, leading to the addition of the term cauda equina to the anatomical lexicon. A less flamboyant figure from the same plate shows small blood vessels coursing over the surface of the cervical spinal cord. This drawing may be the first published depiction of anterior spinal arteries and veins.

António Egas Moniz, born in 1874, was a pioneer in neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry who brought about important changes in the 1920s using groundbreaking brain imaging techniques, such as cerebral angiography. This innovative procedure allowed the visualization of brain structures, leading to many advances in neurology and neurosurgery. Moniz also made noteworthy contributions to psychosurgery, including the development of prefrontal lobotomy. Although initially praised for his inventive techniques, lobotomy sparked ethical debates and public controversies due to its adverse effects and questionable scientific foundation. Moniz's was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1949 and received various honors in Portugal for his scientific, literary, and artistic achievements. His work continues to influence the field of neuroscience, and angiography remains a crucial imaging method for diagnosing and treating brain disorders. Moniz's complex legacy highlights the intricate balance between medical advances, ethical considerations, and public perceptions in the history of medicine.

The Polish Institute for Brain Research was established in Warsaw in 1928 to support scientific research on the brain and its functions. The director of the institute was Maksymilian Rose (1883-1937), a distinguished Polish neurologist and neuroanatomist, a disciple of Oskar Vogt and Korbinian Brodmann. In 1931, the Institute was moved from Warsaw to Vilnius. The Institute was well-known in Europe at the time because of the research in the fields of neuroscience, clinical neurology, and psychiatry, as well as the cytoarchitectonic analysis of social activists' brains-a fashionable, neophrenological way to link the mental functions of deceased geniuses with the cellular composition of their central nervous systems. In 1939, the work of the Institute was interrupted by World War II; some of the preparations and materials were moved from Vilnius to Warsaw, some were stored in Vilnius, and some were lost. In this article, we analyze the primary and secondary sources, some of which were obscure for over 80 years, and evaluate the most important scientific achievements of the Polish Institute for Brain Research, as well as its legacy in the early period of modern neuroscience and neurology in interwar Vilnius.