The 'horns' of a medical dilemma: Alexander the Great

Retrospective 'diagnosis' of clinical disorders of famous historical figures has been of medical interest. In the absence of a patient's 'body', the validity of 'physical symptoms' and their interpretation by contemporary diagnostic criteria are questionable. When the symptoms have been gleaned from the patients's effigy which, as in the case of Alexander the Great, is submerged in legend, the enterprise becomes inherently hazardous. In the present paper, some of the conceptual problems underlying retrospective diagnoses will be identified. Then the use of iconographic records, such as numismatics and sculpture, to provide evidence of clinical symptoms will be shown to be highly misleading.     

Alexander the Great, the dahlia, and the tortoise

Some of the problems of establishing the cause of the death of Alexander the Great are like the attempts to find causes other than hysteria for Anna O.'s symptoms. The more general problem of using plausibility as a criterion of the truth of such reconstructions are illustrated by the arguments embedded in Tom Stoppard's Arcadia.     

Commentary. The diseases of Alexander the Great

The accompanying articles that speculate that Alexander the Great had a traumatic carotid dissection or congenital cervical scoliosis demonstrate the difficulties in retrospective diagnosis as a historical enterprise. The extant primary sources were written centuries after Alexander's death and are ambiguous in their original languages, and even more so in translation. Thus we cannot be certain what illness Alexander actually had. Furthermore, anachronistic diagnosis removes Alexander from the medical context of this time, telling us little of historical significance about him. Such investigations also illustrate the more general limits that the absence of context imposes on the study of ancient history.     

Commentary. The Diseases of Alexander the Great

The accompanying articles that speculate that Alexander the Great had a traumatic carotid dissection or congenital cervical scoliosis demonstrate the difficulties in retrospective diagnosis as a historical enterprise. The extant primary sources were written centuries after Alexander’s death and are ambiguous in their original languages, and even more so in translation. Thus we cannot be certain what illness Alexander actually had. Furthermore, anachronistic diagnosis removes Alexander from the medical context of this time, telling us little of historical significance about him. Such investigations also illustrate the more general limits that the absence of context imposes on the study of ancient history.     

Alexander the Great,the Dahlia,and the Tortoise

Some of the problems of establishing the cause of the death of Alexander the Great are like the attempts to find causes other than hysteria for Anna O.’s symptoms. The more general problem of using plausibility as a criterion of the truth of such reconstructions are illustrated by the arguments embedded in Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia.     

亚历山大史料的五种传统

史料问题是亚历山大研究的主要问题,也是最复杂、最吸引人的问题。亚历山大的史学史是通过史料、残篇、记忆、推测之复杂混合而逐渐形成的。这些材料有不同的风格,总体上可分为赞成亚历山大的传统和反对亚历山大的传统。具体而言,可以把亚历山大的史料分为良好传统、通俗传统、反亚历山大传统、道德传统、东方传统等五种类型。以史家的眼光来看,这些价值各不相同的史料使人们有着更多的解释与想像空间。     

Our Most Dangerous Enemy: Great Britain Pre-eminent in the 1930s

OTTO PFLANZE. Bismarck and the Development of Germany: Volume I: The Period of Unification, 1815–1871; Volume II: The Period of Consolidation, 1871–1880; Volume III: The Period of Fortification, 1880–1898. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Pp. xxx, 518; xvii, 554; ix, 474.

STIG FÖRSTER, WOLFGANG J. MOMMSEN, and RONALD ROBINSON, eds. Bismarck, Europe, and Africa: The Berlin Africa Conference 1884–1885 and the Onset of Partition. New York: German Historical Institute; Oxford University Press, 1988. Pp. xviii, 569.     

从村童到学术大师:韩儒林评传

20世纪的中国史学有两大流派,即实证主义史学和马克思主义史学。韩儒林先生是一位掌握实证史学方法、努力用马克思主义观点解释历史现象的史学家。他在元史和边疆史地研究方面取得了丰硕成就,成为一代学术大师。