A case of exemplarity: C. F. Rottböll's history of smallpox inoculation in Denmark-Norway, 1766

Smallpox inoculation was one of the great discoveries of the 18th century and has been written into the grand narrative of medical progress, describing the taming of epidemic disease. Setting the perspective of progress aside, the article explores how this medical innovation was situated in 18th-century society and culture. The aim is to investigate how medical practice was intertwined with social structure and cultural patterns. The article takes its case from a book published in Copenhagen in 1766 by Professor C. F. Rottb?ll, former Head Physician of the Royal Inoculation House in Copenhagen. Being the first medical treatise on inoculation in Denmark-Norway, the book also has a historical section followed by a collection of reports and letters written by a number of other authors from various parts of the kingdom. Through close reading, the article explores how the introduction of the new technique was described in the texts. The reports were written to present practice and discuss cases. In doing so, they also presented a variety of other concerns so that a diversity of aims and intentions are added to the medical ones. The social and rhetorical strategies employed illuminate social ambition and systems of patronage, as well as understandings of history and of truth.     

Dr. C.E. Brown-Séquard, M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.S., London: the casting of the die

In 1858 Dr. Brown-Séquard arrived in London. During his stay there, he was appointed physician at the National Hospital for the Paralysed and Epileptic (now the National Hospital), and was elected Fellow of the Royal College of Physician's of London, as well as Fellow of the Royal society. During this time he also published his 'Course of Lectures on the Physiology and Pathology of the Central Nervous System' an early exposition of what is now know as 'his' syndrome. During his time in London, Dr. Brown-Séquard made many well-known acquaintances, amongst others Charles Darwin, T.H. Huxley, and Louis Pasteur. Three years after his appointment as physician at the National Hospital, he left London. Increasingly, he was to abondon fashionable practice to concentrate on his study of what are now known as the endocrinal glands. In this way, he became a pioneer of the study of endocrinology.     

A Case of Exemplarity: C. F. Rottböll's history of smallpox inoculation in Denmark–Norway, 1766

Smallpox inoculation was one of the great discoveries of the 18th century and has been written into the grand narrative of medical progress, describing the taming of epidemic disease. Setting the perspective of progress aside, the article explores how this medical innovation was situated in 18th-century society and culture. The aim is to investigate how medical practice was intertwined with social structure and cultural patterns. The article takes its case from a book published in Copenhagen in 1766 by Professor C. F. Rottböll, former Head Physician of the Royal Inoculation House in Copenhagen. Being the first medical treatise on inoculation in Denmark–Norway, the book also has a historical section followed by a collection of reports and letters written by a number of other authors from various parts of the kingdom. Through close reading, the article explores how the introduction of the new technique was described in the texts. The reports were written to present practice and discuss cases. In doing so, they also presented a variety of other concerns so that a diversity of aims and intentions are added to the medical ones. The social and rhetorical strategies employed illuminate social ambition and systems of patronage, as well as understandings of history and of truth.     

The Indo‐European mirror: Monotheism and polytheism (J.G. Herder,E. Renan,A. Pictet,F.M. Müller and R.F. Grau)

Some authors assigned the Indo‐Europeans a mirror‐like role which allowed them to understand their own position with respect to contemporary Christian values. After dealing briefly with the writings of J.G. Herder, I shall evoke a certain number of questions which oriented the research of E. Renan, F.M. Müller, A. Pictet and R.F. Grau. The works of the latter authors expounded fabulous genealogies, organizing them into explanatory systems that radically opposed Hebrew monotheists to Indo‐European polytheists. Thus, depending on whether they had used the Semites or the Indo‐Europeans as their starting‐point, they concluded that monotheism or polytheism, respectively, was the archaic source of human thought. The goal on their horizon was a ressuscitated West, forever in the forefront of progress, often simultaneously Christian and scientific. If this type of historiographic analysis is urgently needed at the present time, its purpose is not to provide a grid for distinguishing “truth”; from “falsehood,”; but rather to grasp a set of scholarly traditions within its own channels of transmission.     

Slavic,European, or Asiatic? F. H. Duchinski on the Origins of the Russian People

The emergence of Russia as a dominant force in Europe from the early nineteenth century onward was characterized by growing tensions between Russians and Poles as seen in the recurring Russian suppression of Polish uprisings. F. H. Duchinski (1817–93) who, like other Polish intellectuals, tried to uncover the root causes of these political tensions, concluded that Russians were neither Slavic nor European, but Asians, and it was this fact alone, he believed, that accounted for the continuing Russian hostility toward the Poles.     

Aspects of the History of the Nerves: Bell’s Theory,the Bell-Magendie Law and Controversy,and Two Forgotten Works by P.W. Lund and D.F. Eschricht

The French physiologist François Magendie showed, in 1822, that the anterior roots of the spinal nerves are motor and the posterior sensory. The English anatomist Charles Bell claimed the discovery, but his claim was based on republications of papers in which the wording had been altered to be consistent with Magendie’s findings. Bell also appropriated Herbert Mayo’s discoveries of the functions of the fifth and seventh cranial nerves. Bell repeated his claims in a number of influential publications, supported by his brothers-in-law John and Alexander Shaw. And for a century and a half, Bell figured as the discoverer in most references to the subject. During this period, several reviewers did go back to Bell’s original papers, disclosing Bell’s falsifications in the republished texts. But Magendie was not definitely acknowledged as the discoverer of the function of the spinal nerve roots until Cranefield’s (1974) treatise. Cranefield, as did all other reviewers, overlooked accounts from 1825 by P.W. Lund and F.D. Eschricht. They critically reviewed Bell’s early publications and reached conclusions similar to those of Cranefield concerning the roles of Bell and Magendie in the discovery of the function of the spinal nerve roots.     

Historical Archeology,Dialectical Marxism,and “C.F.U.G. Studies”

In studying capitalism in general, Marx declares it his chief aim “to lay bare its law of motion”; and his main way of proceeding is to begin with its present state, and then move backwards into the past by uncovering its necessary preconditions, especially within the mode of production (asking essentially—what had to have happened earlier for the present to appear and function as it does?). After which, he reverses himself, and, starting with where he arrived in the past, he re-examines the same conditions and events—using whatever evidence is available—as they evolved up to the present. Finally, with the help of the contradictory tendencies (often referred to as “laws”) that are brought into view by combining these two steps, Marx projects in broad outline where capitalism seems to be heading. Human beings, divided into social classes, come into this analysis—as both causes and effects—every step along the way. The present article examines what the discipline of archeology can contribute to this project.     

Alvis,J. David,Jeremy D. Bailey,and F. Flagg Taylor,IV. The Contested Removal Power, 1789–2010.

Abstract

In this article, we use legislative correspondence to determine who gains access to key staffers in a congressional office. To evaluate our theory of the office power hierarchy, we test hypotheses using an original dataset of more than 3,000 correspondence records from the office of former member of Congress James R. Jones. Our empirical analysis is supplemented by an e-mail interview with Representative Jones. We find that key senior staffers are more likely to pay attention to powerful individuals and nonroutine matters. Letters from women and families and those dealing with routine legislation are more likely to be answered by lower-ranked staffers. These results are important because they reveal that even something as simple as constituent correspondence enters a type of power hierarchy within the legislative branch where some individuals are advantaged over others.