The Sickly Stuarts: The Medical Downfall of a Dynasty
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
Frederick Holmes, physician and professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Kansas Medical Center, took a sabbatical leave in 1991 to study British history and became enamored with the Stuart family of 17th-century kings and queens (Figure). The result is this generously illustrated, well-written book, which ought to interest medical professionals who want to know more about how prominent people of the past — in this case, a ruling family of Scotland and England — were treated for disease. Focusing on the dynasty's health, Holmes concludes that "disease and disability brought down the Stuart dynasty," because "Parliament gained power each time Stuart rule faltered because of sickness and infirmity."
Charles Prince of Wales, James Duke of York, and Princess Mary, Children of King Charles I.
Engraving by Robert Strange after a painting by Anthony Van Dyck. Courtesy of Wellcome Library, London.
Using original diagnostic measurements that he labels certain, possible, doubtful, or of uncertain meaning, along with an eclectic mix of primary and secondary sources, Holmes considers the lives and deaths of these royal patients. His diagnoses provide the strongest and most entertaining part of the narrative, sometimes agreeing with traditional assumptions and at other times decrying historical judgments that, in his view, need revision — notions such as that James II's nosebleeds might have cost him the throne or that George III and his ancestors suffered from porphyria. Holmes bravely attributes Charles II's death to poisoning by mercury inhaled from the toxic experiments in which the king engaged with the Royal Society, and he argues that Queen Anne succumbed to systemic lupus erythematosus. However, he is less successful in analyzing the Stuarts' philosophies of ruling, attributing their political missteps to mental defect or delusion, rather than to principled if unpopular policy.
Although Holmes may be qualified to speculate on the illnesses that beset four generations of Stuarts, his amateurism as a historian shows too clearly. Even though this book was written for a general audience, not for specialists in the period, it lacks citations in places where they are obviously needed, especially to support arguable pronouncements. When he does cite a work, it is often a survey textbook or an unremarkable encyclopedia, which is a faux pas no professional historian would commit. Holmes relies on too many dated biographies, gossipy "social" histories written in the 19th century, and even the romance novelist Barbara Cartland's Private Life of Charles II: The Women He Loved (London: F. Muller, 1958). The chapter on the state of medicine in Stuart England could have profited from the recent scholarship of Andrew Wear, Harold Cook, and the late Roy Porter. Holmes's appendix on physicians to the Stuarts omits the Whig doctor to William and Mary, James Welwood, as well as controversial quacks such as Anne's oculist, William Read, and Charles II's "feverologist," Robert Talbor. Had Holmes read Talbor's Pyretologia (1672), he might have stumbled on another possible reason for the alarming rate of miscarriage among the Stuart elite: Talbor, who had a royal monopoly on Jesuits' Bark (cinchona) in England, prescribed double doses of quinine for pregnant women.
There are also problems with Holmes's rather narrow focus on monarchical health, not the least of which is the absence of mention of any noteworthy activity, political or religious, that occurred apart from the family, as if the Stuarts were in some sort of vacuum. Perhaps the death of Prince Henry in 1612 was a calamity that led inexorably to the reign of Charles I and the Civil War, but the forces opposing the government's foreign and domestic policies were already bringing change. Charles I did die in 1649 — not because he was sick but because he was executed. Indeed, everybody dies of something, and the Stuarts were no more prone to debilitating disease or reproductive woes than were the Tudors — who got only three generations of monarchs out of their dynasty — or, for that matter, other early modern denizens of the British Isles. One could argue that the death of Oliver Cromwell, regicide and Lord Protector, was more important in the scheme of things, precipitating the restoration of the Stuarts, than the passing of William III, whose anti-French wars were continued by Queen Anne.
Elizabeth Lane Furdell, Ph.D.
University of North Florida
Jacksonville, FL 32224(By Frederick Holmes. 224 )
信息仅供参考,不构成任何之建议、推荐或指引。文章版权属于原著作权人,若您认为此文不宜被收录供大家免费阅读,请邮件或电话通知我们,我们收到通知后,会立即将您的作品从本网站删除。Charles Prince of Wales, James Duke of York, and Princess Mary, Children of King Charles I.
Engraving by Robert Strange after a painting by Anthony Van Dyck. Courtesy of Wellcome Library, London.
Using original diagnostic measurements that he labels certain, possible, doubtful, or of uncertain meaning, along with an eclectic mix of primary and secondary sources, Holmes considers the lives and deaths of these royal patients. His diagnoses provide the strongest and most entertaining part of the narrative, sometimes agreeing with traditional assumptions and at other times decrying historical judgments that, in his view, need revision — notions such as that James II's nosebleeds might have cost him the throne or that George III and his ancestors suffered from porphyria. Holmes bravely attributes Charles II's death to poisoning by mercury inhaled from the toxic experiments in which the king engaged with the Royal Society, and he argues that Queen Anne succumbed to systemic lupus erythematosus. However, he is less successful in analyzing the Stuarts' philosophies of ruling, attributing their political missteps to mental defect or delusion, rather than to principled if unpopular policy.
Although Holmes may be qualified to speculate on the illnesses that beset four generations of Stuarts, his amateurism as a historian shows too clearly. Even though this book was written for a general audience, not for specialists in the period, it lacks citations in places where they are obviously needed, especially to support arguable pronouncements. When he does cite a work, it is often a survey textbook or an unremarkable encyclopedia, which is a faux pas no professional historian would commit. Holmes relies on too many dated biographies, gossipy "social" histories written in the 19th century, and even the romance novelist Barbara Cartland's Private Life of Charles II: The Women He Loved (London: F. Muller, 1958). The chapter on the state of medicine in Stuart England could have profited from the recent scholarship of Andrew Wear, Harold Cook, and the late Roy Porter. Holmes's appendix on physicians to the Stuarts omits the Whig doctor to William and Mary, James Welwood, as well as controversial quacks such as Anne's oculist, William Read, and Charles II's "feverologist," Robert Talbor. Had Holmes read Talbor's Pyretologia (1672), he might have stumbled on another possible reason for the alarming rate of miscarriage among the Stuart elite: Talbor, who had a royal monopoly on Jesuits' Bark (cinchona) in England, prescribed double doses of quinine for pregnant women.
There are also problems with Holmes's rather narrow focus on monarchical health, not the least of which is the absence of mention of any noteworthy activity, political or religious, that occurred apart from the family, as if the Stuarts were in some sort of vacuum. Perhaps the death of Prince Henry in 1612 was a calamity that led inexorably to the reign of Charles I and the Civil War, but the forces opposing the government's foreign and domestic policies were already bringing change. Charles I did die in 1649 — not because he was sick but because he was executed. Indeed, everybody dies of something, and the Stuarts were no more prone to debilitating disease or reproductive woes than were the Tudors — who got only three generations of monarchs out of their dynasty — or, for that matter, other early modern denizens of the British Isles. One could argue that the death of Oliver Cromwell, regicide and Lord Protector, was more important in the scheme of things, precipitating the restoration of the Stuarts, than the passing of William III, whose anti-French wars were continued by Queen Anne.
Elizabeth Lane Furdell, Ph.D.
University of North Florida
Jacksonville, FL 32224(By Frederick Holmes. 224 )
微信文章
关注百拇
评论几句
搜索更多
推存给朋友
加入收藏
|