Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Naming the Mad Mind
Published in Petteri Pietikainen, Madness, 2015
Hysteria was by its very nature a protean illness, a diagnostic tabula rasa, the content of which was determined by socio-cultural factors (Micale 1995; Gilman et al. 1993). In the nineteenth century, hysteria, which had been around since antiquity, was the grand dame of the neuroses. Up until the early modern age, hysteria was deemed to be a female malady caused by the restless movements of the womb inside the body – the wandering womb or migratory uterus (the Greek word hystera means womb). The main symptom of hysteria was an unpleasant sense of suffocation, or constriction of the throat, caused by the womb pressing on the heart, liver and lungs. Hysterical symptoms were most common among recently widowed women who had suddenly ceased having sexual intercourse. In the Hippocratic writings there are only short lists of symptoms of and cures for hysteria, but no case histories of women suffering from such a malady of the uterus (Midelfort 1999, 5).
Performing Hysteria
Published in Nathan J. Timpano, Constructing the Viennese Modern Body, 2017
In her book Electra After Freud (2005), Jill Scott analyzes the construction of the fin-de-siècle heroine by first charting the etiology of hysteria. Starting with ancient theories of the wandering womb, Scott meanders through Freud’s and Breuer’s ideas on psychopathology, outlined in Studies in Hysteria, before arriving at Hofmannsthal’s and Richard Strauss’ respective dramatic works, in which Elektra is refigured as a tragic femme fatale.64 Scott does not, however, propose that Hofmannsthal’s Elektra had actually become a madwoman. In an attempt to situate the discourse on Elektra within psychoanalytic and feminist criticism, Scott concludes that Elektra should not be perceived as a hysteric, and that any such reading of this sort only “undermines any diagnosis by appropriating and indeed performing the medical discourse and disease as a defensive strategy.”65 Scott thus contends that “Elektra’s hysteria is perhaps intrinsic to her femininity” and therefore metaphorically represents “the radical otherness of Elektra as woman” within the context of Hofmannsthal’s play.66 Building on feminist reevaluations of Freudian psychoanalysis offered by Luce Irigaray, Elaine Showalter, Jane Gallop, and Shoshana Felman, as well as on Judith Butler’s constructivist theory of sex and gender, Scott employs a postmodern, feminist methodology to elucidate Elektra’s sexual difference and the identity politics associated with this gendered character—that is, as a woman who is not actually hysterical, but who acts out hysteria in order to recapture a positive identity for herself.67
The Rise Of Psychiatry And Neurology
Published in Andrew P. Wickens, A History of the Brain, 2014
In the later part of his career, Charcot turned his attention to the subject of hysteria – a term then widely used to describe extreme emotional behaviour in women. Originally linked with movements of a wandering womb by Hippocrates, it was a belief that remained remarkably persistent up until the nineteenth century, despite the protestations of some who recognised hysteria could also occur in males. Although hysteria remains a difficult disorder to define, it is generally recognised as a condition where the patient suffers from physical abnormalities arising from a psychological or mental cause. However, perhaps the most puzzling aspect of hysteria, especially for nineteenth century physicians, was that it took so many bizarre forms. Its symptoms, for example, frequently included excessive laughing or crying, wild bodily movements, paralysis, numbness, or temporary deafness and blindness. In addition, many patients presenting with hysteria show a heightened sensitivity to touch, fainting and a predilection for drama and deception – all of which were highly intermittent and exacerbated by stress. As a young doctor, Charcot would have been aware of hysteria, and his professional interest in the illness arose when put in charge of a ward of women suffering from convulsive disorders. Although most were genuine epileptics, some were recognised as hysterics who had learned to imitate their epileptic attacks. The cause of this behaviour was a mystery. While some doctors felt such symptoms had an organic basis in the brain, others felt the hysteric was simply malingering or acting. Indeed, many hysterics exhibited symptoms with no conceivable neurological explanation. One example was ‘glove anaesthesia’ where patients reported no feeling in their hand, yet felt sensation in the wrist and arm. Because of this, hysterics at Salpêtrière tended to be treated by the physicians who specialised in mental illness away from the wards governed by Charcot.
Contextualizing ovarian pain in the late 19th century—Part 1: Women with “hysteria” and “hystero-epilepsy”
Published in Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 2021
John Jarrell, Frank W. Stahnisch
In scholarly literature, there have been excellent theoretical reviews of the historical development of “hysteria” and “hystero-epilepsy,” along with their relationship to women in particular and mental health more generally (Goetz 1987; Micale 1995; Tasca, Maur, and Fianca 2012). A number of researchers have based their interpretations explicitly on historian Ilza Veith's (1912–2013) notion that the ancient Greeks associated hysteria with illness conditions caused by what was viewed as the wandering womb (Micale 1995; Veith 1965). These etiopathological views also extended to Roman medical leaders, including Aretaeus of Cappadocia (second century CE), Galen of Pergamon (c. 129–c. 210 CE), and Soranus of Ephesus (first/second century CE).