Whilst Anna Os, or rather Bertha Pappenheims place in the memoir of hysteria, and later psychoanalysis, is undoubtedly crucial, we must, in recount to understand her own motive and that of her case biographers, place this infamous patient in her rightful(prenominal) historical con textbook.
frenzys long history has always been acknowledged, indeed health check writers throughout its duration, and particularly in the last two centuries, receive referred tenderly to its classical ancestry, to its glorious founding father, Hippocrates. For much(prenominal) medical writers the existence of an ancient tradition, of hysteria diagnosis and treatment, has harboured a righteous belief in the sanctity of the category, in medical efforts to control the disorder and in the universality of hysteria as a disease category. However, as recent studies have revealed, in particular, the work of Helen King, the Hippocratic texts to which physicians have charted their lineage- The Nature of Women and Diseases of Women, may well lack the medical and linguistic cement that was, in the history writing of hysteria, always assumed to be there.
King, a British classicist, embarked upon a full- scale linguistic analysis of the above text and found, contrary to popular belief, that at no point in the text was the term hysteria used to describe a disease of women, instead she found a frequent referral to the hystera, essence the uterus and also to the category- hysterikos pertaining to a number of symptoms, described as being of the womb or from the womb. The error of this self-confidence King traces back to Ilza Veiths momentous historical study of Hysteria in 1965, an error essentially of translation- for Veith had read the nineteenth nose candy version of the Hippocratic text, translated by a physician and classicist Emile Littre, a man who despite his overall accuracy had, by chance for ease and protractability,
If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment