{"title":"影响深远的流感1781-1782 年 \"俄罗斯鼠疫 \"大流行","authors":"Matthew P Romaniello","doi":"10.1093/jhmas/jrae025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The influenza pandemic of 1781-1782 was remarkably well-documented, with investigations and treatment records produced in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia. Everyone agreed that outbreak began in St. Petersburg in December 1781 and then spread across northern Europe, but the medical communities’ consensus did not solve all issues. Two questions would inspire years of debate. The first concerned the transmission vector of the pandemic: was it the result of neo-Hippocratic, miasmatic, or contagionist exposure? This was perhaps the greatest concern of the late-eighteenth century, and multiple physicians hoped the latest influenza pandemic could provide an answer. The second was no less difficult – where did the disease originate? This was not only because geography affected both prophylactic measures and treatment options but also produced diplomatic and commercial consequences. Was a quarantine necessary, preventing commercial exchanges? Did the risk of infection result in peace negotiations being delayed, potentially extending the American Revolution and the ongoing naval conflict in the Atlantic? Even if a consensus could be reached that this was a “Russian” catarrh, this would not resolve the method of disease transmission. The pandemic of 1781-1782 was not a turning point in the arguments among neo-Hippocratic, miasmatic, and contagionist physicians, but rather reveals all three positions could be held simultaneously.","PeriodicalId":49998,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Influential Influenza: The “Russian Catarrh” Pandemic of 1781-1782\",\"authors\":\"Matthew P Romaniello\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jhmas/jrae025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The influenza pandemic of 1781-1782 was remarkably well-documented, with investigations and treatment records produced in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia. Everyone agreed that outbreak began in St. Petersburg in December 1781 and then spread across northern Europe, but the medical communities’ consensus did not solve all issues. Two questions would inspire years of debate. The first concerned the transmission vector of the pandemic: was it the result of neo-Hippocratic, miasmatic, or contagionist exposure? This was perhaps the greatest concern of the late-eighteenth century, and multiple physicians hoped the latest influenza pandemic could provide an answer. The second was no less difficult – where did the disease originate? This was not only because geography affected both prophylactic measures and treatment options but also produced diplomatic and commercial consequences. Was a quarantine necessary, preventing commercial exchanges? Did the risk of infection result in peace negotiations being delayed, potentially extending the American Revolution and the ongoing naval conflict in the Atlantic? Even if a consensus could be reached that this was a “Russian” catarrh, this would not resolve the method of disease transmission. The pandemic of 1781-1782 was not a turning point in the arguments among neo-Hippocratic, miasmatic, and contagionist physicians, but rather reveals all three positions could be held simultaneously.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jrae025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jrae025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Influential Influenza: The “Russian Catarrh” Pandemic of 1781-1782
The influenza pandemic of 1781-1782 was remarkably well-documented, with investigations and treatment records produced in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia. Everyone agreed that outbreak began in St. Petersburg in December 1781 and then spread across northern Europe, but the medical communities’ consensus did not solve all issues. Two questions would inspire years of debate. The first concerned the transmission vector of the pandemic: was it the result of neo-Hippocratic, miasmatic, or contagionist exposure? This was perhaps the greatest concern of the late-eighteenth century, and multiple physicians hoped the latest influenza pandemic could provide an answer. The second was no less difficult – where did the disease originate? This was not only because geography affected both prophylactic measures and treatment options but also produced diplomatic and commercial consequences. Was a quarantine necessary, preventing commercial exchanges? Did the risk of infection result in peace negotiations being delayed, potentially extending the American Revolution and the ongoing naval conflict in the Atlantic? Even if a consensus could be reached that this was a “Russian” catarrh, this would not resolve the method of disease transmission. The pandemic of 1781-1782 was not a turning point in the arguments among neo-Hippocratic, miasmatic, and contagionist physicians, but rather reveals all three positions could be held simultaneously.
期刊介绍:
Started in 1946, the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences is internationally recognized as one of the top publications in its field. The journal''s coverage is broad, publishing the latest original research on the written beginnings of medicine in all its aspects. When possible and appropriate, it focuses on what practitioners of the healing arts did or taught, and how their peers, as well as patients, received and interpreted their efforts.
Subscribers include clinicians and hospital libraries, as well as academic and public historians.