Print

Print


I don't care what they meant then we're talking about what they mean
now--which is essentially nothing since they were too general. Describing
Eliot as "neurasthenic" means nothing, as it once may have meant what seemed
like something but was really in fact nothing.

GAVIN





on 9/28/02 12:37 PM, Nancy Gish at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> I'm sorry, but if you want a long list of medical articles from the period
> that
> say quite differently, let me know.  At the turn of the century and up to and
> through the war, "hysteria" was a broad term that did indeed include shell
> shock and what we would call post-traumatic stress.  I only said
> "neurasthenia" was hard to distinguish, and there is a long text making
> that claim and giving charts of differences that then got quoted by many
> doctors.  On this you are factually wrong as to what the terms meant then.
> As I spent many, many weeks reading on this at the Bodlian last year, I
> am quite certain of my terminology.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
>
>
> Date sent:              Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:13:58 -0700
> Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
> From:                   Francis Gavin <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:                Re: Some Queries, was Re: Deluge...
> To:                     [log in to unmask]
>
> Both neurasthenia and hysteria are considered quaint antiquated terms in
> medical circles. Hysteria is sometimes used in a very limited way to
> describe disassociation in personality formation, neurasthenia not at all.
> Neither one has anything to do with battle fatigue or PTSD, which are in
> turn, two different things.
>
> GAVIN
>
>
> on 9/28/02 10:26 AM, Nancy Gish at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> "Shell Shock" is what they called hysteria and we
>> would probably call post-traumatic stress disorder.  In any case, there
>> was a very extensive literature on it that actually goes back a couple
>> of thousand years to ancient Egypt.  Vittoz specifically wrote on
>> "neurasthenia."