Neurology and Literature, 1860–1920 by Anne Stiles (ed.)

Abstract

Research from many perspectives has been made on the work of the French neurologist, J.‐M. Charcot (1825–1893) with particular reference to his fame for his studies and “construction”; of hysteria. What has not been demonstrated so far is the extent to which Charcot's construction can be explained by the perceived relationship between hysteria and epilepsy and Charcot's access to epileptic patients at La Salpêtrière. From the confusion that reigned concerning hysteria and epilepsy, both separately and in relation to each other, Charcot claimed to have isolated hysteria as a distinctive and universal pathology. This claim was partly based on the “grande attaque”;, representing the most intense degree of hysteria. A comparison with Gowers, the contemporary English neurologist suggests that diagnosis was the function of the practitioners’ preferences; and a linguistic analysis pinpoints Charcot's problems in describing an isolated pathology in terms of its relation to its neighbour, epilepsy.     

Philosophical Instruments and Toys: Optical Devices Extending the Art of Seeing

In the nineteenth century, there was a continuous debate on the structure and function of the brain, focusing on localization of function and on epilepsy. France, Germany, and England played a leading role. This article addresses the question of what happened with respect to the study of epilepsy in the Netherlands in that period. A systematic search of the literature has been performed and papers by Schroeder van der Kolk, Huet, Jelgersma, and Niermeijer are discussed. Also two dissertations were selected for discussion, those of Kroon and Langelaan. It is concluded that from a scientific point of view, only the paper by Schroeder van der Kolk deserved and received international attention.