A History of Depressed Skull Fractures from Ancient Times to 1800

The story of managing depressed fractures illustrates how knowledge of proven value does not always get handed down. Celsus was the first to describe sensible management for depressed fractures. As he wrote in Latin this was forgotten. Galen’s Greek writings survived forming the basis of management until the sixteenth century. In 1517, Hans von Gersdorff published a formidable illustrated surgical text. One illustration depicts an instrument for elevating depressed bone fragments. It looked dramatic but could not work and its defects were finally defined in the eighteenth century. Ambroise Paré used a bone punch just as we do today, but no later surgeon mentions this, though the instrument was well known. Elements of chance, fashion, emotionally powerful illustrations, and perhaps stubbornness had a profound effect on management delaying rational treatment for centuries.     

Obituary. Wolfgang Scharfe (1942–2003)

At the turn of the twentieth century, a popular mania developed around the idea that Mars was inhabited by intelligent beings. This obsession was originally based in the science of the time, but it outlasted astronomers' certainty regarding the red planet's conditions of habitability. Cartography was vital to the popular construction of Mars as an inhabited world and created a powerful landscape icon that differed significantly from the observations of astronomers. Acceptance of a Martian civilization began to wane only when cartography's status as an objective representational format was weakened by new photographic technology in the early 1900s. Although the processes and formats of cartography are rarely considered primary factors in the Mars mania, they were integral to the origin, development and expiration of the conceptualization of Mars as a world that was possibly inhabited.     

Tradition and critique in Paul Muldoon's “Madoc: A Mystery”

Paul Muldoon's “Madoc: A Mystery” remains his longest poem and most thorough vision of an alternative history. This article argues that Muldoon's poem works to stage not only a visionary history of America but also, via the uneasy relations that develop between its two main characters (semi-fictionalised versions of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey), a dramatisation of the conflict that obtains between competing modes of historical understanding. Muldoon's Coleridge and Southey represent stances that may be usefully regarded as parallel to positions advanced in the famous debate regarding interpretation between Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas, thinkers whose names appear in the poem itself. To read the poem in light of this connection between its fantastical transatlantic history and the history of critical theory allows a reading of Muldoon's treatment of both literary and political histories as secondary to the work's playful exploration of struggles between modes of historical interpretation.