This book studies the evolution of medical theory and education in Germany between 1750 and 1820.

By examining German university medicine between 1750 and 1820, this book presents a new interpretation of the emergence of modern medical science. It demonstrates that the development of modern medicine as a profession linking theory and practice did not emerge suddenly from the revolutionary transformation of Europe at the opening of the nineteenth century, as Foucault and others have argued. Instead, Thomas H. Broman points to cultural and institutional changes occurring during the second half of the eighteenth century that reshaped both medical theory and physicians' professional identity. Among the most important of these factors was the emergence of a literary public sphere in Germany between 1750 and 1800, a development that exposed medical writing to new discourses such as Jena Romanticism and created the stage on which the bitter medical controversies of the 1790s would be played.

A concise and accessible introduction to health and healing in Europe from 1500 to 1800.

"With diverse constitutions, a multiplicity of approaches, styles, and aims is both expected and desired. This volume locates medical history within itself and within larger historiographic trends, providing a springboard for discussions about what the history of medicine should be, and what aims it should serve."--Jacket

A new comprehensive book on the history of medicine.

One of the key themes of the Enlightenment was the search for universal laws and truths that would help illuminate the workings of the universe. It is in such attitudes that we trace the origins of modern science and medicine. However, not all eighteenth century scientists and physicians believed that such universal laws could be found, particularly in relation to the differences between living and inanimate matter. From the 1740s physicians working in the University of Medicine of Montpellier began to contest Descartes's dualist concept of the body-machine that was being championed by leading Parisian medical 'mechanists'. In place of the body-machine perspective that sought laws universally valid for all phenomena, the vitalists postulated a distinction being living and other matter, offering a holistic understanding of the physical-moral relation in place of mind-body dualism. Their medicine was not based on mathematics and the unity of the sciences, but on observation of the individual patient and the harmonious activities of the 'body-economy'. Vitalists believed that Illness was a result of disharmony in this 'body-economy' which could only be remedied on an individual level depending on the patient's own 'natural' limitations. The limitations were established by a myriad of factors such as sex, class, age, temperament, region, and race, which negated the use of a single universal treatment for a particular ailment. Ultimately Montpelier medicine was eclipsed by that of Paris, a development linked to the dynamics of the Enlightenment as a movement bent on cultural centralisation, acquiring a reputation as a kind of anti-science of the exotic and the mad. Given the long-standing Paris-centrism of French cultural history, Montpellier vitalism has never been accorded the attention it deserves by historians. This study repairs that neglect.

Um 1800 diskutierte man über Naturkräfte in verschiedenen wissenschaftlichen und künstlerischen Zusammenhängen: Anziehung und Abstoßung, Lebenskräfte und elektrische Ströme, der "Bildungstrieb" und biologische Organismen wurden als Kräfte untersucht, die sich auf „natürliche" Prozesse zurückführen lassen. Literatur, Wissenschaft und Philosophie der deutschsprachigen Romantik von Schelling bis zu Günderrode und Hölderlin arbeiteten sich an Konzepten von Kräften ab, die als dynamisch und in beständiger Tätigkeit begriffen wurden – Kräfte, die auch menschliche Handlungen, soziale Strukturen und kulturelle Entwicklungen einzuschließen schienen. Der Band erkundet Vor- und Darstellungen von Naturkräften in der Romantik an der Schnittstelle von Naturwissenschaft und kulturellen Vorstellungswelten.

One hundred years before Freud’s striking psychoanalytic case-histories, the narrative psychological case-history emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century in Germany as an epistemic genre (Gianna Pomata) that cut across the disciplines of medicine, philosophy, law, psychology, anthropology and literature. It differed significantly from its predecessors in theology, jurisprudence, and medicine. Rather than subsuming the individual under an established classification, moral precept, category, or type, the narrative psychological case-history endeavored to articulate the individual in its very individuality, thereby constructing a ‘self’ in its irreducible singularity. The presentation and analysis of several significant psychological case-histories, their theory and practice, as well as the controversies surrounding their utility, validity, and function for an envisioned ‘science of the soul’ constitutes the core of the book. Close and ‘distant’ (F. Moretti) readings of key texts and figures in the discussion regarding ‘empirical psychology’ (psychologia empirica), experiential psychology (Erfahrungsseelenkunde) and ‘medical psychology’ (medizinische Psychologie) such as Christian Wolff, J.C. Krüger, J.C. Bolton, Ernst Nicolai, J.A. Unzer, J.G. Sulzer, J.G. Herder, Friedrich Schiller, Jacob Friedrich Abel, Marcus Herz, Karl Philipp Moritz, J.C. Reil, Ernst Platner and Immanuel Kant provide the disciplinary, historical-scientific context within which this genre comes to the fore. As the first systematic argument concerning the early history of this genre, my thesis is that the psychological case-history evolved as part of a pastoral apparatus of care, concern, guidance and direction for what it fashioned as the ‘unique’ individual, as the discursive medium in a process by which the soul became a ‘self’. The narrative psychological case-history was in fact a meta-genre that transcended traditional boundaries of history and fiction, medicine and philosophy, psychology and anthropology, and sought, for the first time, to explicitly link the experience, history, memory, fantasy, previous trauma or suffering of a unique individual to illness, deviance, aberration and crime. In a word, it demonstrated, as Freud later said of his own case-histories in Studies on Hysteria, “the intimate relation between the history of suffering and the symptoms of illness” (“die innige Beziehung zwischen Leidensgeschichte und Krankheitssymptome”). This genre not only had a profound and far-reaching effect on the evolution of German and European literature – one thinks of the rich traditions of the Novella and the Fallgeschichte from Goethe, Büchner, R. L Stevenson, Edgar Allen Poe and Chekhov to Kafka and beyond – but in shaping modern literature, the clinical sciences, and even popular culture. The book should therefore be of interest not merely to Germanists, modern European cultural historians, historians of science, and literary historians, but also those interested in the history of medicine and psychology, the origins of psychoanalysis, the history of anthropology, cultural studies, and, more generally, the history of ideas.

One of the great medical controversies of the Enlightenment was the European debate on motion, sensation, and animal experimentation provoked by Albrecht von Haller’s treatise on irritability and sensibility (1752). Irritating Experiments is the first full-length study to explore the theoretical background and the experimental process that led to Haller's description and separation of two fundamental bodily qualities: irritability, or the capacity of muscles to contract upon stimulation, and sensibility, or the capacity of the nervous system to transmit impressions that are felt as touch or pain in humans, or produce signs of pain in animals. This new concept presented a serious challenge to the reigning medical systems. Haller’s animal experiments were repeated all over Europe, on a scale never seen before. The results, however, were contradictory. Haller's concept was largely rejected, and animal experimentation could not be established as a major research method in physiology. Focussing on procedural aspects of experimentation, the interaction between experiment and theory, the status of surgery, the use of medical and pathological models, and the culture of criticism, Irritating Experiments tries to explain why.