The Role of Herman Hoppe of Cincinnati in the Initial Clinical Recognition of Myasthenia Gravis

One of the earliest papers describing a case of what came to be known as myasthenia gravis was written in 1892 in the German language by an American, Herman Hoppe, who at the time was an assistant in the Berlin polyclinic of the prominent German neurologist, Hermann Oppenheim. At Oppenheim’s instigation, Hoppe published the pathology of a case that Oppenheim had diagnosed during life; he collected all the reported similar cases and tried to establish a symptom-complex, for which he was given credit in Oppenheim’s great neurology textbook of 1894. Upon his return to Cincinnati, Ohio, Hoppe’s European experience qualified him as a specialist in nervous and mental diseases. His private practice of “neuropsychiatry” was his main occupation, but he also volunteered to teach as Professor of Nervous and Mental Diseases at the University of Cincinnati. In 1901 Oppenheim published the first monograph about what he called “ Die Myasthenische Paralyse (Bulbarparalyse ohne anatomischen Befund) ”, summarizing 60 cases described in the medical literature up to that time. Hoppe, on the other hand, wrote on myasthenia gravis only once again, a review article in 1914 in a Cincinnati weekly, giving Oppenheim credit for the establishment of the disease as a clinical entity.     

Hermann Oppenheim's observations about music in aphasia

Hermann Oppenheim was influential in many areas of neurology, but his ideas about music are relatively unknown. In 1888, he published a paper that outlined how the assessment of music skills in patients with aphasia could lead to a better understanding of aphasia and language. Oppenheim conducted the first comprehensive music assessment as part of a neurologic examination and presented the first case series of music in aphasia. His paper was widely cited and had significant influence over the next 30 years. Although largely unrecognized as such, Oppenheim was an important historical figure in the study of music and neurology.     

Mitchell's Influence on European Studies of Peripheral Nerve Injuries During World War I

Objective: Describe the influence of S. Weir Mitchell's (1829-1914) work, and in particular his ideas on causalgia, on European physicians who treated peripheral nerve injuries during World War I (WWI). Background: During the American Civil War (1861-1865), Mitchell studied peripheral nerve injuries with colleagues George Read Morehouse and William Williams Keen. Three monographs resulted from this work. All were important landmarks in the evolution of knowledge of peripheral nerve injuries. A subsequent occasion to improve knowledge came in WWI. Methods: The most important European monographs or series on peripheral nerve injuries from WWI were studied with special interest in references to causalgia and Mitchell's works on peripheral nerve injuries. We included works by Tinel, Athanassio-Bénisty, Purves-Stewart & Evans and Carter, Foerster and Oppenheim. Results: Tinel and Athanassio-Bénisty provided the most detailed information on peripheral nerve injuries and causalgia and often referred to Mitchell. Both mentioned a possible sympathetic origin. Athanassio-Bénisty described tremor and other movement disorders in relation to causalgia. Purves-Stewart and Evans mentioned Mitchell and causalgia in the second edition of their book. They advocated the term "thermalgia." Carter, who had access to data of many cases, concentrated his work on causalgia, referring to Mitchell. Foerster provided data of a great number of peripheral nerve injuries, but did not refer to Mitchell. However, he described the symptoms of causalgia cursorily, applying the term Reflexschmerz (reflexpain). Oppenheim was particularly interested in muscle innervation and referred to Mitchell with respect to hypertrichosis and glossy skin. Oppenheim did not use the term causalgia, although he described the syndrome in some of his patients. It wasn't until around 1920 that German physicians devoted significant attention to causalgia and began using the term. Conclusion: Knowledge of peripheral nerve injuries was greatly advanced during and after WWI. Mitchell's influence was mainly found in the French medical literature, where his findings provided the basis for further research on the origin of causalgia. In England, Mitchell and causalgia were also well-known. We found evidence to suggest that some of the English knowledge came from French physicians. German physicians described the symptoms of causalgia, but did not use the term, nor did they refer to Mitchell. This variation in Mitchell's influence by country probably reflects the fact that Mitchell's Injuries of nerves and their consequences was translated into French but not German.     

评德国新教传教士花之安的中国研究

花之安是19世纪德国新教传教士。1864—1899年,他在中国从事传教活动达35年之久。他以“文字传教”为工作重点,一方面用中文写作了若干宗教宣传品和介绍西方文化的读物;另一方面,他也有意识地研究中国,把中国的各方面情况和他自己的认识介绍到西方社会。然而花之安的研究工作主要是为传教服务的。由于宗教偏见和西方文化优越论的影响,花之安的中国观带有显著的帝国主义倾向,是西方列强征服中国的文化辅助工具。     

Streptomycin, Schatz v. Waksman, and the balance of credit for discovery

A recent article in Nature, arguing that "the misallocation of credit is endemic in science," used Selman Waksman as an illustration, claiming that the true discoverer of streptomycin was one of his graduate students. The article received wide publicity and seriously damaged Waksman's great reputation. What actually happened was that the success of penicillin stimulated Merck to fund research by Waksman, a soil scientist, into the collection of actinomycetes that he had assembled over thirty years. He applied the systematic, uncreative testing techniques that had made the German pharmaceutical industry so successful to these, and streptomycin was discovered within a matter of months. Work in the Mayo Institute then showed that it was marvelously effective against tuberculosis, and Waksman received the Nobel Prize for it in 1952. The test that turned out to be the crucial one could have been carried out by any of several students, but the lucky one was Albert Schatz. He then sued the university for a share of the royalties payable by Merck and also petitioned the Nobel committee to include him in the award. Although he obtained a very substantial out-of-court settlement, this probably damaged his subsequent academic career, and he has never ceased to argue his case for recognition, of which the Nature article is a reflection. To claim that Waksman took credit properly due to Schatz is to fail to understand that once pharmaceutical research had become primarily a matter of large-scale, routine testing, little individual creativity was left in this work. Credit for any successful results must therefore be given to whoever is the originator or director of a particular program. Nature refused to publish evidence that this case could not be used as an example of misallocation of credit for discovery. This in itself illustrates that editors of scientific journals should be every bit as mindful of scientists' reputations as they are of scientific facts.     

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.     

Founding years of clinical neurology in Berlin until 1933

During the so-called "Gründerjhare" or "founding years" in Berlin it became necessary to build new hospitals because of the rapid growth of population. As a result, several infirmaries, asylums for the insane and institutions for epileptics were build between 1877 and 1912. The new building of the University of Neuropsychiatric Clinic ("Nervenklinik") of the Charité was opened in 1905 according to plans made by Friedrich Jolly (1844-1904), the physician who named myasthenia gravis pseudoparalytica. A "Neurological Central Station", under the direction of Oskar and Cecil Vogt, in existence since 1898, was a research center dedicated more to morphology. There the study of the structure of the cerebral cortex by Korbinian Brodmann (1868-1925) and research into basal ganglia diseases by the Vogts began. The Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute for Cerebral Research, which moved into a new building in 1931, also had its origin here. Hermann Oppenheim (1858-1919) promoted independent clinical neurology, as did his younger contemporary, Max Lewandowsky (1876-1918), who was already advising physician for neurology at the Berlin-Friedrichshain Hospital. Hug Liepmann (1863-1925), the creator of apraxia theory, worked at the asylums for the insane in Dalldorf (Berlin-Wittenau) and Berlin-Herzberge. In 1911, the first neurological unit was established in the large hospital in Berlin-Buch under the direction of Otto Maas. Not until after World War I were further neurological hospital units founded, under the direction of Paul Schuster (1867-1940), Kurt Goldstein (1878-1965), Kurt L?wenstein (died in 1953) and Friedrich Heinrich Lewy (1885-1950). These Jewish physicians, as well as C.E. Benda and Otto Maas, had to leave their posts in 1933 and emigrate. The clinical institutions and scientific achievements of these pioneers of independent clinical neurology will be presented up to the point of its violent dissolution.     

Gall’s German enemies

ABSTRACT

Franz Joseph Gall’s (1758–1828) proposal for a new theory about how to represent the mental faculties is well known. He replaced the traditional perception-judgement-memory triad of abstract faculties with a set of 27 highly specific faculties, many of which humans share with animals. In addition, he argued that these faculties are dependent on specific cortical areas, these being his organs of mind. After several years of presenting his new views in Vienna, he was banned from lecturing for what he considered absurd reasons. The edict enticed him to make a scientific journey through the German states, both to present his ideas to targeted audiences and to collect more cases. This trip, started in 1805, was extended to include stops in Denmark, Holland, and Switzerland before finally ending in Paris in 1807. For the most part, Gall was received with great enthusiasm in what is now Germany, but there were some individuals who strongly opposed his anatomical discoveries and skull-based doctrine. In this article, we examine the concerns and arguments raised by Johann Gotlieb Walter in Berlin, Henrik Steffens in Halle, Jakob Fidelis Ackermann in Heidelberg, and Samuel Thomas Soemmerring in Munich, as well as how Gall responded to them.     

The contribution of Dr. Mary Walker towards myasthenia gravis and periodic paralysis whilst working in poor law hospitals in London

Dr. Mary Walker discovered in 1934 that physostigmine and Prostigmin temporarily restored muscle function in patients with myasthenia gravis. In the next five years, Dr. Walker and colleagues provided clinical evidence for the weakness of myasthenia gravis being caused by a "disturbance of transmission of excitation from motor nerve to voluntary muscle presumably caused by a deficiency of acetylcholine. Physostigmine (or Prostigmin) compensated for the lack of acetylcholine by delaying its destruction." Dr. Walker and colleagues also described the association between familial periodic paralysis and hypokalaemia.     

The Real vs the Imaginary: Sir William Chambers on the Chinese Garden

Sir William Chambers was one of the most important English architects in the eighteenth-century, but both in his day and later his international recognition was closely connected with his admiration for and promotion of Chinese art, particularly Chinese landscaping. Between 1757 and 1773, Chambers published three treatises praising the ingenious mixture of nature and art in a Chinese pleasure ground, criticizing the then influential English gardener Lancelot (Capability) Brown, and trying to goad English garden design into the direction of China. He did not achieve his purposes mainly because he mixed what he knew as genuine about the Chinese gardening art with what he fantasized about it. While recent scholarship has focused on his fantasy, this article examines what Chambers knew or imagined about Chinese landscaping, what he and his detractors were for and against, and how the fiasco of his 1772 and 1773 treatises, which he brought upon himself, nevertheless helped to usher in a new phase in the English reception of Chinese landscaping ideas.     

Walter Taylor and the history of American archaeology

Walter Taylor’s place in the history of archaeology is well secured. Not only is he noted for his uncredited anticipation of the theoretical and methodological innovations of the 1960s and 1970s in his infamous book A Study of Archeology, but he is also well-known for committing professional suicide by short-sightedly attacking numerous key figures in American archaeology for their methodological shortfalls, and yet never publishing a report utilizing his controversial method. Although these statements have inundated the historical literature on American archaeology, they are received wisdom rather than the reality of Taylor’s contributions to the field. Many aspects of Taylor’s conjunctive approach were at odds with the stated aims of processual archaeology. Although Taylor did not live up to his critics’ (or his own) demands for a grand display of his approach, he did on several occasions demonstrate its potential. The irony of Taylor in the history of archaeology is not that he was uncredited for his prescience or that his attacks on the archaeological establishment were a naïve failure; but rather that he receives too much credit for what he didn’t do, and not enough for what he did.     

Gustaf Dalman, Anti-Semitism, and the Language of Jesus Debate

The theory that Jesus of Nazareth spoke and taught exclusively in Aramaic rather than Hebrew achieved its present dominant position just over a century ago due largely to the labour of Gustaf Dalman. His primary motivation was not the recovery of the historical Jesus, however, but to support his deep commitment to the Protestant movement to convert Jews. This movement did not escape the impact of escalating anti-Semitism in society, intensified by rapid progress towards German national unification. One Christian response to anti-Semitism was to "extract" Jesus from Judaism by contrasting him with "Jewish" attitudes and values held by Jewish spiritual authorities. Dalman's contribution was to extract Jesus from the ethnically exclusive Hebrew language by insisting that he spoke only the more widely used lingua franca of the region, Aramaic. By overstating his case and going beyond the evidence, Dalman revealed his indebtedness to the anti-Semitic spirit of his age.     

From Berlin and Jerusalem: On the Germanness of Gershom Scholem

Although Gershom Scholem, one of the leading Judaic studies scholars of modern times, was born and raised in Germany, he consistently represented himself as an un‐German Jew. Rejection of Germany and Germanness was a leitmotif of Scholem's self‐presentation, particularly after immigrating to Jerusalem in 1923. Scholem became a central figure in the Jewish intelligentsia of mandate‐era Palestine and later the state of Israel, and he helped shape Jewish discourse around the world. However, a re‐examination of his unpublished and published correspondence, youthful journals, writings and interviews, and actual actions demonstrates that Scholem must also be seen as a German intellectual whose lifelong intellectual, political, social, and cultural predilections were the products of the German Jewish bourgeoisie and the German intelligentsia at the turn of the twentieth century. Long after emigrating from Germany, Scholem remained marked by Germanness and an ongoing relationship with Germany.     

Jean-Baptiste Say's First Visit to England (1785/6)

The French classical economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) gained fame as a political economist in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1785, aged eighteen, he visited Britain for the first time to prepare himself for a commercial career and to learn English. Other visits followed; but, in contrast to his visits in subsequent years, during 1814/15 and 1825, little is known about his first visit and those writing about Say tend to ignore it or consider it irrelevant. By drawing on his draft autobiography and on his street plan of Croydon, the article adds more information to supplement the meagre published accounts of this visit: where and with whom he lived, for whom he worked, whom he met and what his itinerary was during the time he was in England. The key places Say mentions are London, Croydon and Fulham. While not a definitive account of the visit, it does correct factual errors, clear up confusion and clarify ambiguities. The article questions speculations about Say witnessing the Industrial Revolution and proposes that, during his visit, his interests may have lain elsewhere than only in matters of commerce and taxation.     

Charcot and Les névroses traumatiques: scientific and historical reflections

Between 1878 and 1893, Jean-Martin Charcot published over twenty detailed case histories dealing with what he termed 'traumatic hysteria' and what today would be labelled the psychoneurology of trauma. Charcot's cases record a highly diverse clinique tableau of symptoms. Etiologically, Charcot posited a dual model of a hereditary diathèse, or constitutional predilection to nervous degeneration, and an environmental agent provocateur. Increasingly during the 1880s, he emphasized the role of 'psychical shock'. These writings of Charcot also exhibit many of the same, superb clinical qualities that distinguish his work on other medical topics. Charcot isolated several hystero-traumatic formations and provided outstanding clinical depictions of subgenres of the disorder, most notably brachial monoplegias. His clinical demonstrations of the differential diagnosis of organic and functional post-traumatic pathologies represent Charcot the virtuoso neurologist at his finest. Taken together, these writings offer a penetrating exploration of the complex and elaborate functional sequelae of minor bodily injury and the phenomenon of traumatic psychogenic somatic symptom-formation. The revival today of medical interest in psycho-traumatic pathology, including the traumatic origins of certain dissociative states, provides an important context for the renewed appreciation of Charcot's work in this area.     

Founding Years of Clinical Neurology in Berlin Until 1933

During the so-called “Gründerjahre” or “founding years” in Berlin it became necessary to build new hospitals because of the rapid growth of population. As a result, several infirmaries, asylums for the insane and institutions for epileptics were built between 1877 and 1912. The new building of the University Neuropsychiatric Clinic (“Nervenklinik”) of the Charité was opened in 1905 according to plans made by Friedrich Jolly (1844–1904), the physician who named myasthenia gravis pseudoparalytica. A “Neurological Central Station”, under the direction of Oskar and Cecil Vogt, in existence since 1898, was a research center dedicated more to morphology. There the study of the structure of the cerebral cortex by Korbinian Brodmann (1868–1925) and research into basal ganglia diseases by the Vogts began. The Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute for Cerebral Research, which moved into a new building in 1931, also had its origin here. Hermann Oppenheim (1858–1919) promoted independent clinical neurology, as did his younger contemporary, Max Lewandowsky (1876–1918), who was already advising physician for neurology at the Berlin-Friedrichshain Hospital. Hugo Liepmann (1863–1925), the creator of apraxia theory, worked at the asylums for the insane in Dalldorf (Berlin-Wittenau) and Berlin-Herzberge. In 1911, the first neurological unit was established in the large hospital in Berlin-Buch under the direction of Otto Maas. Not until after World War I were further neurological hospital units founded, under the direction of Paul Schuster (1867–1940), Kurt Goldstein (1878–1965), Kurt Löwenstein (died in 1953) and Friedrich Heinrich Lewy (1885–1950). These Jewish physicians, as well as C.E. Benda and Otto Maas, had to leave their posts in 1933 and emigrate. The clinical institutions and scientific achievements of these pioneers of independent clinical neurology will be presented up to the point of its violent dissolution.     

« Ne nous engageons point dans les querelles » : Un projet de guerre perpétuelle ?

This article considers the extent to which a quarrel might be a strategic activity for a writer or philosopher making a bid for posterity. Inveterate quarrellers like Voltaire or Rousseau come to mind, but the case to be examined here is the far less straightforward case of Diderot and in particular the stance of ‘accidental quarreller’ that he fabricates in his Essai sur les règnes de Claude et de Néron et sur les moeurs et les écrits de Sénèque pour servir à l’introduction de la lecture de ce philosophe (1782), the last work he published in his lifetime. The article argues that the Essai constitutes what might be called a « quarrel-text », that is to say a text that stages the quarrel of which it is itself the object and, in so doing, reignites it; it analyses the stance adopted by the philosopher-quarreller as it is revealed in the paradoxical utterance « ne nous engageons point dans les querelles », the performative qualities of which are explored in detail.     

NIETZSCHE'S RELATION TO HISTORICAL METHODS AND NINETEENTH‐CENTURY GERMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

Nietzsche is generally regarded as a severe critic of historical method and scholarship; this view has influenced much of contemporary discussions about the role and nature of historical scholarship. In this article I argue that this view is seriously mistaken (to a large degree because of the somewhat misleading nature of Vom Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie für das Leben). I do so by examining what he actually says about understanding history and historical method, as well as his relation to the founders of modern German historiography (Wolf, Niebuhr, Ranke, and Mommsen). I show, contrary to most expectations, that Nietzsche knew these historians well and that he fundamentally affirmed their view of historical method. What he primarily objected to among his contemporaries was that historical scholarship was often regarded as a goal in itself, rather than as a means, and consequently that history was placed above philosophy. In fact, a historical approach was essential for Nietzsche's whole understanding of philosophy, and his own philosophical project.