The Emergence of Multiple Sclerosis as a Nosological Category in France, 1838–1868

Neurologists have retold a story about the discovery of multiple sclerosis (MS) in essentially the same form from the 1870s to the present. Upon close analysis this narrative was found to be problematic. Once the nosological category of MS came into existence in 1868, physicians reread the scientific past through this new category and created a linear story. Following generations received this story uncritically, rereading the past through the conceptual lens of their own times. Writers selected the earlier cases, illustrations, and medical writings in the literature for inclusion in the discovery narrative and did not analyze them in their original historical contexts. The author offers an alternative account of the discovery of MS. The creation of the disease category of MS by Charcot in France was the result of several converging factors including a new histopathological technology, a unique relationship between patient and physicians in the clinic, a unique relationship between the clinic and the autopsy room, and a neurological culture emphasizing disease specificity.     

RECONCEIVING THE PRACTICE OF HISTORY: FROM REPRESENTATION TO TRANSLATION

Arguing that history is not the application of a rigorous method to sources bequeathed to us from the past but rather a practice of coding that constructs “the past” in particular ways, this article seeks to delineate the key elements of this coding. Modern history treats past objects and texts as the objectified remains of humans who endowed their world with meaning and purpose while constrained by the social circumstances characterizing their times. This time of theirs is dead, and it can only be represented, not resurrected; the past is only ever the human past, and it does not include ghosts, gods, spirits, or nature. If, as argued here, “the past” does not exist independently of the means by which it is known and represented, then the many different modes of historicity that human beings developed and deployed before the modern form of history became dominant cannot be measured against “the” past in an effort to compare their accuracy or adequacy in representing it. The concluding section of this article asks what we are doing when we write the history of those who did not share the presumptions of the modern discipline but who had their own mode(s) of historicity. What, it asks, is the character and status of the knowledge produced when we write histories of premodern and non-Western pasts?     

Experimental history: the appeal of postmodemism in historiography

Use, truth and time constitute the basic elements of the epistemological structure of history. That structure went through three stages: pre-modern (from ancient times to the late eighteenth century, before the professionalization of history took place), modern (the period of professional history, from the late eighteenth century to the 1970s), and post modern (post 1970s). In these three stages, use, truth, and time successively occupied the core of the epistemological structure of history. Postmodernist history, which puts time at the core of its epistemology, is an extreme form of historicism. Even more than historicism, it has emphasized the determining effect of time and change on historical truth and historical consciousness. The privatization of historical narrative and reading has prodded history to become experimental. Experimental history no longer proclaims the truth about the past. Instead, under specific historical circumstances, it strives to produce texts that will be recognized by individual historians and provides these texts to readers, who will make their own judgments. Whether these texts are true will be decided through the uses they produce. In this way, any historiographical practice will be an experiment conducted by an historian in the present and that will consist in searching for the truth about the past. The success of this experiment will depend entirely on the experimental environment, that is, on the conditions provided by the reading environment. __________ Translated from: Beijing Shifan Daxue Xuebao 北京师范大学学报 (Journal of Beijing Normal University), Vol. 5, 2004     

孔子的历史思想和史学意识

春秋之时,史学作为学科远未形诸事实,然孔子历史思想与史学意识则多有表现。孔子伦理观念中蕴含着对人类社会共同体的认识;其以天人、古今、有道无道、文质等相对概念分析概括历史的变化;认同礼乐制度的不断完善,视其为人文的核心;重视君主及其道德在历史上的作用;敬鬼神而远之,以考量历史及其过程的途径去体贴天命,透散出历史理性;以文化传承者自任,整理、保存并阐发典籍;总结历史,以为救弊方案,体现出明道经世的史学价值取向。     

HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY FROM A SLIGHTLY COSMOPOLITAN POINT OF VIEW

Under review here are three works of different formats and scopes, each addressing questions of theory of history and the history of historiography. First, the mature work of Ignacio Olábarri Gortázar, published by the University Press of Salamanca, where he is now an emeritus professor, collects pieces written over a period of fifteen years that deal with matters related to his field of research in social labor history and other methodological and historiographical issues. Second, Fernando Sánchez Marcos seeks to offer an introductory book on the most noteworthy theoretical and historiographical issues of the twentieth century. Third, the volume from Jaume Aurell (Spain), Peter Burke (England), Catalina Balmaceda, and Felipe Soza (both from Chile) is a general handbook of historiography addressed primarily to students. All have their strengths and weaknesses. The most striking weakness is a persistent limitation of the field of vision, which is restricted to a European/Western (Francophone, Anglophone) cultural universe.     

Localization and William Macewen’s Early Brain Surgery Part II: The Cases

This paper contains Part II of an evaluation of the claims made for the priority of Macewen’s pre-1884 brain surgery over that of Bennett and Godlee. Although the primary sources – Macewen’s Private Journals and the Ward Records of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary – confirm that the operations were carried out when Macewen said they were, problems with the sources make it difficult to evaluate the extent to which he actually used knowledge of localization in all seven operations. What remains of the case material on the operations is examined, the accounts in unpublished sources and published versions compared, and Macewen’s use of knowledge of localization bearing on the claim for his priority evaluated. Part II concludes with citations from archival correspondence and the contemporary and near contemporary medical press confirming Macewen’s priority.     

论20世纪20年代的中国近代史研究

20年代的中国近代史研究呈现出一种畸形的发展状况。近代史研究不被时人看重,但却有不少近代史著述出版。到1928年,通过对近代史史料的整理工作,由斯而发,罗家伦明确提出了要科学地研究中国近代史,开启了近代史研究的新局面;从史学史的角度对这些近代史著述的特点作出总结,知人论世,可以窥见20年代近代史研究的状况。     

The Study of Chinese Historiography from the Perspective of Intellectual History

To promote historical research today, one needs to create a vigorous environment for historiographic criticism, to summarize the progress and state of all fields and topics of history, and to enhance the study of historiography. All these three aspects, which share similar characteristics, can be called “historiography.” Their essence is the basic method for deepening the study of historiography as a whole and refining its branches from the perspective of intellectual history. They can help us to form a healthy scholarly mechanism to review historical achievements, which would be crucial to the development of academic research. Translated from Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition), No. 2, 2004     

从环境的历史到环境史——关于环境史研究的一种认识

By and large, there are three kinds of research on environment: the history of environment as a field of natural history studies, the history of environment as within the scope of history of society studies, and environmental history as the study of the relationship between human and nature. The methodological perspective of the relationship between humanity and environmental distinguishes the third from the previous two. From this perspective, when we probe the mutual effects between human and nature, we will stress on their interactions. The new era and the realities of contemporary society foster the rise of environmental history, which has not only theoretical values but also practical significance. Translated from Xueshu Yanjiu 学术研究 (Academic Research), 2006, (9):12–22     

Three Twentieth-Century Multiauthored Neurological Handbooks – A Historical Analysis and Bibliometric Comparison

The emergence of neurology as a separate specialty from internal medicine and psychiatry took several decades, starting at the end of the nineteenth century. This can be adequately reconstructed by focusing on the establishment of specialized journals, societies, university chairs, the invention and application of specific instruments, medical practices, and certainly also the publication of pivotal textbooks in the field. Particularly around 1900, the German-speaking countries played an integral role in this process. In this article, one aspect is extensively explored, notably the publication (in the twentieth century) of three comprehensive and influential multivolume and multiauthor handbooks entirely devoted to neurology. All available volumes of Max Lewandowsky's Handbuch der Neurologie (1910–1914) and the Handbuch der Neurologie (1935–1937) of Oswald Bumke and Otfrid Foerster were analyzed. The handbooks were then compared with Pierre Vinken's and George Bruyn's Handbook of Clinical Neurology (1968–2002).

Over the span of nearly a century these publications became ever more comprehensive and developed into a global, encompassing project as is reflected in the increasing number of foreign authors. Whereas the first two handbooks were published mainly in German, “Vinken & Bruyn” was eventually published entirely in English, indicating the general changes in the scientific language of neurology after World War II. Distinctions include the uniformity of the series, manner of editorial involvement, thematic comprehensiveness, inclusion of volume editors in “Vinken & Bruyn,” and the provision of index volumes. The increasing use of authorities in various neurological subspecialties is an important factor by which these handbooks contrast with many compact neurological textbooks that were available at the time.

For historiographical purposes, the three neurological handbooks considered here were important sources for the general study of the history of medicine and science and the history of neurology in particular. Moreover, they served as important catalyzers of the emergence of neurology as a new clinical specialty during the first decades of the twentieth century.     

清季支那史、东洋史教科书介译初探

清季对日本之支那史、东洋史教科书的介译,是清末教育改革的产物,对清末早期新式学堂的历史教育,对国人自编本国史教科书的出现,都产生了深远影响;支那史、东洋史的介译亦是20世纪初年新史学思潮的重要组成部分,对新史学思潮的深入发展起到了推波助澜的作用;介译支那史、东洋史之主旨在于弘扬爱国主义精神,表现出较为浓厚的功利色彩。支那史、东洋史教科书在中国近代教育史、史学史上应有一定的地位。     

关于陈独秀历史观的若干问题

陈独秀不是历史学家,但他的历史观值得我们研究。他视历史学为一门科学,他对中国古史分期、封建社会长期延续的原因、中国近代史的基本线索和科学体系以及近代社会的性质等重大历史理论问题都提出了看法,有的符合唯物史观,具有一定的理论意义和学术影响,有的则缺乏科学性,存在明显的缺陷。陈独秀历史观影响他对中国现实的认识和态度。     

Introduction: The historiography of slavery in the Danish-Norwegian West Indies,c. 1950-2016.

This introduction to the special issue ‘Slavery, Servitude and Freedom in the Danish-Norwegian West Indies, 1672–1848’, edited by Niklas Thode Jensen and Vibe Maria Martens, situates the five essays in the issue in the framework provided by previous research. It begins with a historiographical overview of research carried out since c. 1950 concerning Caribbean and Danish-Norwegian West Indian racial slavery, and continues to locate the essays within this field and its recent historiographical trends. The introduction ends with a brief overview of the history of the Danish-Norwegian and later the Danish West Indies to provide the general context for the five essays.     

二十年来中国改革史研究述评

中华民族的历史也是一部改革史。20年来,中国改革史研究取得了十分可观的成绩：改革史著作和论文大量涌现;“改革史”学科范型基本构成;社会改革作用、改革与革命的关系、改革成败规律等史学理论问题有重大突破和发展。“改革史”研究方兴未艾,必将继续呈现勃勃生机。