The story of David Ferrier's demonstration at the International Medical Congress in London in August 1881 of a monkey experimentally rendered hemiplegic by a focal surgical brain lesion-prompting Charcot's observation, "C'est un malade!"-is well known as a seminal event in the history of the localization of functions in the cerebral cortex. Less well known is the fact that, on the same occasion, Ferrier demonstrated a second monkey, known as monkey F, apparently deaf as a consequence of bilateral temporo-sphenoidal brain lesions. The purpose of this article is, first, to give a chronological account of this demonstration and subsequent related events, including Ferrier's trial under the Vivisection Act, the publication of the pathological findings in the animal's brain, the dispute about the localization of the "auditory centre" with Edward Schäfer, and the first glimmerings of human homologues of cortical deafness. Second, we briefly reappraise Ferrier's findings in light of current concepts of the central substrates of complex sound processing.

The knee jerk reflex, emblematic of neurology and central to clinical practice, marks its 150th anniversary in 2025. First introduced to the neurological literature in 1875 through independent reports by Wilhelm Erb and Carl Westphal, this reflex has since evolved from a clinical curiosity to a diagnostic staple, although its initial interpretation was debated. Erb viewed it as a spinal reflex, whereas Westphal questioned its reflex nature, considering mechanical muscle excitation. Early pioneers such as John Hughlings Jackson, Victor Horsley, and Charles Sherrington made significant contributions to understanding the knee jerk's physiology, exploring its diagnostic relevance, its relation to spinal cord function, and its afferent pathways. These investigations established the knee jerk as a cornerstone of neurological examination, exemplifying the integration of clinical observation with experimental science.

In his teaching, Charcot often used artistic representations from previous centuries to illustrate the historical developments of various conditions, particularly hysteria, mainly with the help of his pupil Paul Richer. Charcot liked to draw portraits and sketches of colleagues during boring faculty meetings and students' examinations, including caricatures of himself and others, church sculptures, landscapes, soldiers, and so on. He also used this skill in his clinical and scientific work. He drew histological or anatomic specimens, as well as patients' features and demeanor. His most daring artistic experiments were drawing under the influence of hashish. Charcot's tastes in art were conservative; he displayed little interest for the avant-gardes of his time, including impressionism, or for contemporary musicians, such as César Franck or Hector Berlioz. The pamphleteer Léon Daudet described Charcot's home as a pseudo-gothic kitsch accumulation of heteroclite pieces of furniture and materials. However, he taught medicine not only as a science but also as an art, a style that has now been almost universally forgotten.

Jean-Marin Charcot died unexpectedly on August 16, 1893, at the age of 67, while on a journey to the Morvan for a short holiday with colleagues and friends. This article reports in detail circumstances of Charcot's journey, and his untimely death in a small and modest room in a secluded hotel in the French countryside. In Part 1, I describe the reasons for Charcot's choice to go on the journey, with an emphasis on his role in the recent and controversial "Panama Affair." Subsequently, I describe the first days of the vacation journey by train, horse-drawn carriage, and walking as he visited castles, churches, and an archeological museum. During this holiday, Charcot's companions got to know his great versatility: He was interested in history, antiques, excavations from the prehistory, languages, literature, painting, architecture, nature, and horticulture. In Part 2, I narrate Charcot's sudden death. Additionally, I pay attention to the different reports in the press, the difficult and long journey of the corpse back to Paris, and the religious funeral, followed by the walk to Charcot's final resting place in the Montmartre Cemetery.

Edward Reynolds Hun is easily eclipsed by his father, Thomas (1808-1896), and his younger brother, Henry (1854-1924), in historical accounts of the evolution of neurology as a clinical specialty and academic discipline in nineteenth-century America. His early educational pathway, including a postgraduate year in Paris, was typical for sons of the wealthy seeking a medical degree. On his return from Europe, he embarked on a research career in neuropsychiatry seeking to uncover biochemical and pathological underpinnings for psychiatric disorders. In addition to standard postmortem examinations, he used the most up-to-date technological advances such as sphygmography. He was also one of the first Americans to publish photomicrographs of muscle obtained by biopsy. In his mid-30s he became a charter member of the American Neurological Association and was appointed professor of diseases of the nervous system at Albany Medical College. His health then rapidly deteriorated, leading to his early death at age 37 of an unclear neurologic disorder. His career intersected with those of other notables in late-nineteenth-century American neurology, including John P. Gray, William A. Hammond, Edward Constant Séguin, and Edward Charles Spitzka.

During 1881-1895, a small number of male patients-18 in total-were diagnosed with hysteria at the University of Tartu Psychiatric Hospital. Rather than constituting an obscure psychiatric institution on the margins of European medical traditions, Tartu during these years witnessed the arrival of several influential psychiatrists: Hermann Emminghaus (1845-1904), Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926), and Vladimir Chizh (1855-1922). Yet, when comparing patient case records of male hysteria written by doctors who also published journal articles and medical textbooks on the topic, one can detect a clear inconsistency between the theory and practice of psychiatry at an important moment of its formation. Contrary to the simplified characterizations in the textbooks, there was no uniform formulation of male hysteria in the case records. The clinical description differed remarkably, throughout the career of individual doctors, between symptomology presented in a textbook and clinical picture described in a patient record, and between different doctors who practiced in the same clinic during this 15-year period. This study highlights the importance of using patient case records in conjunction with a formal medical treatise to provide new insights and nuances to the intellectual history of hysteria, but also other diagnoses and clinical practice more broadly.

Jean-Martin Charcot believed that "miraculous" cures followed the rules of nature and that the resolution of physical stigmata after pilgrimages to shrines followed the laws of physiology. He acknowledged that some of the patients he had failed to improve at La Salpêtrière had subsequently been cured by the "faith cure" at Lourdes, but he believed their recovery had occurred through "autosuggestion." Although this term is more commonly associated with his collaborator Pierre Janet, it is clearly expressed in Charcot's final pronouncements. Charcot's recognition of the neurological origin of hysteria is central to contemporary ideas about the cause of functional neurological disorders, and even some components of his once derided treatment approach-including mental training, graded exercise, and medical hypnotism-are in vogue.

Currently, the idea that the brain is a complex network of interacting brain regions is hardly controversial. The rapid development of this field is often attributed to the emergence of powerful brain-imaging techniques and, around the millennium, the merging of the neuroscience of brain networks with modern mathematical graph theory. However, little is known about the historical roots of this concept. It is interesting to know when the first traces of a concept of brain networks can be found in the work of early neuroscientists, how this concept evolved over time, and what factors may have influenced this evolution. This study aims to set a first step in addressing these questions by a detailed analysis of David Ferrier's classic study, . From this analysis it will become clear that, in addition to a clear notion of localized functions in the brain, Ferrier speculated in several places about the need for several of these brain regions to communicate and interact in order to bring about higher brain functions. He referred to this perspective on the brain as a "complex whole," which could be interpreted as an early precursor of the modern concept of brain networks.

Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) showed little interest in mental disorders, the domain of nineteenth-century alienists. But hallucinations are not confined to the field of psychiatry, and Charcot, who had once tested the hallucinogenic effects of hashish in his youth, went on to describe hallucinations in the course of various neurological conditions as just another semiological element. Most of his or his disciples' writings on hallucinations can be found in his work on hysteria. Hallucinations and delusions were part of "grand hysteria" and occurred at the end of the attack (third or fourth phase). Hypnosis or chemical agents could also induce hallucinations. Charcot and his disciples did not go so far as to emphasize the importance of hallucinations when they evoked past trauma, especially sexual trauma. Charcot's materialistic orientation led him and his disciples-especially D. M. Bourneville (1840-1909), G. Gilles de la Tourette (1857-1904), and the neurologist and artist P. Richer (1849-1833)-to seek hysteria in artistic representations of "possessed women" and in the visions of nuns and mystics. Finally, Charcot recognized the importance of hallucinations in neurological semiology, by means of precise and relevant observations scattered throughout his work. Preoccupied with linking hysteria to neurology, Charcot only scratched the surface of the possible significance of hallucinations in this context, paving the way for the work of his students Pierre Janet (1859-1947) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).

Ivane Beritashvili has been regarded as an "anti-Pavlovian" for nearly a century. One respect in which Beritashvili is said to be anti-Pavlovian is in granting an explanatory role to subjective mental states in his doctrine of image-driven behavior. In this article, I aim to problematize the anti-Pavlovian assessment and argue that Beritashvili did not deviate from Pavlovian scientific norms, minor points of theoretical and methodological differences between them notwithstanding. Furthermore, several respects in which Beritashvili is claimed to be anti-Pavlovian are ways in which he resembles Pavlov. Turning my attention to Beritashvili's critics in the Soviet Union, those responsible for his censure, I argue that it is the critique of Beritashvili that runs counter to the norms Pavlov embraced. I contest the claim that his alleged deviations from Pavlovian orthodoxy justify classification as anti-Pavlovian in a sense that is either historically accurate or philosophically interesting, and submit that the grounds on which Beritashvili is derided as anti-Pavlovian would also justify labeling Pavlov himself as anti-Pavlovian. Informed by the case of Beritashvili and others who were politically persecuted for their scientific work in the Soviet Union, I conclude with reflections on science, politics, and the intrusion of the latter in the former.

The history of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)-also known as Charcot's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and motor neuron disease (MND)-freezes the texts of the scientist and physician Jean-Martin Charcot in a hagiographic narrative describing a brilliant discovery, based on the anatomo-clinical method. This narrative is often used by biologists and physicians as a reference point. This article shows that the use of the hagiographic register faces limitations. In particular, it obscures points of interest from Charcot's texts on ALS, such as the epistemological and ontological implications of scientific plurality in medicine. Although Charcot recognized the importance of scientific plurality in medicine, he prioritized the approaches and conferred the most important epistemic authority on clinical and pathological observations. In his view, animal modeling remains secondary to the understanding of disease. The concept of ALS and its diagnostic operability are the result of symptoms and lesions. By studying the past, we can highlight the specific features of the present. Today, although the ALS concept retains its diagnostic and clinical relevance, it is increasingly called into question in etiological and mechanistic research. Despite these differences, Charcot's reflections are a reminder of the importance of theoretical thinking on scientific plurality, all the more so today in the context of ALS research, in which combining different approaches is increasingly valued to understand the phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity of ALS.

Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) pioneered the use of visual aids in his lectures at the Hôpital de la Salpêtrière. He deployed photographs, casts, diagrams, graphs, drawings, lantern slides, and even patients to help the audience understand his innovative diagnoses, but that same visual imagery also informed his own conceptualizations of pathology. Charcot, whom Sigmund Freud famously called a "," made drawings of his patients and their autopsied organs while also encouraging the art-making of his many collaborators and protégés at the Salpêtrière in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Their "scientific artworks" epitomize the entanglement of art and medical science at the hospital. This article examines the role of visual media in diagnosing pathology under Charcot's aegis, bringing to light images and objects that catalogue the case of Ambroise Bourdy. Here was a perfect example of the male hysteric, according to Charcot: a "robust" blacksmith and father who developed a hysterical contracture after a workplace injury. In 1882, Charcot's Salpêtrière colleagues-including Dr. Henri Parinaud, Dr. Paul Richer, Louis Loreau, and Albert Londe-tested Bourdy's eyes, made drawings and a cast of his contracted left hand, and photographed him in various poses. The surfeit of visual imagery of Bourdy purports to illustrate traumatic hysteria-however, it more effectively, if unintentionally, reveals a delight in art-making at the Salpêtrière.

Jean-Martin Charcot is perhaps best remembered for his contributions to organic neurology. However, his pursuit of hysteria, the most prevalent diagnosis in his hospital clinic, yielded no anatomical lesion to account for hysteria's plethora of somatic disorders assumed due to a purely functional or lesion in the cerebral cortex. This led Charcot to turn his attention to the psychology of hysteria. Taking advantage of institutional reforms at the Salpêtrière-notably, the establishment of his professorship in nervous diseases-Charcot from the early 1880s focused his teaching increasingly on case histories of hysteria in male as well as female patients. Already renown for his earlier dramatic public lessons on female hysteria, his lessons of the 1880s, of which two volumes were published at the end of the decade, elaborated the issue of psychology in terms of altered states of patient's suggestibility. By the decade's end, Charcot's worldwide reputation rested on the prospects of this work as acknowledged by numerous students, notably medical psychologists Pierre Janet and Sigmund Freud. Yet Charcot's views remained sketchy. They were discussed at length in his unpublished notes for a lesson intended for May 1893, just a few months before his sudden death. His unpublished notes reveal a detailed case for dreams as illustrating a psychological mechanism underlying hysteria in a 17-year-old Paris artisan. I conclude by considering why this significant climactic case of Charcot's might have been overlooked by his entourage.

Jean-Martin Charcot, often lauded for his seminal contributions, is seldom critiqued for his blunders. One such blunder was his double-semidecussation scheme for the retinocortical visual pathways, proposed in 1875 to explain, on neuroanatomic grounds, cases of hysteria that manifest hysterical amblyopia accompanied with ipsilateral hemianaesthesia. Charcot's scheme was inconsistent with the older, broadly correct scheme of Prussian ophthalmologist Albrecht von Gräfe. Charcot failed to perform clinicopathologic correlation studies. His analysis relied on a series of mistaken conclusions he made in conjunction with Swiss-French ophthalmologist Edmund Landolt: (1) an optic tract lesion could produce a homonymous hemianopsia; (2) cerebral lesions, if they produced homonymous hemianopsia, did so by secondary effects (e.g. pressure) on the optic tracts; and (3) damage to the cortical projections from the lateral geniculate produces a crossed amblyopia. Challenges to Charcot's theory came from within France by 1880. By 1882, Charcot recognized that his scheme was erroneous, and he approved a thesis by his pupil Charles Féré that reverted to Gräfe's scheme with an ill-conceived modification to accommodate Charcot's concept of hysterical cerebral amblyopia. A critique by American neurologist Moses Starr in 1884 argued for Gräfe's scheme and refuted Charcot's erroneous scheme and its subsequent derivatives.

Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) did not show much interest in the peripheral nervous system and its associated pathologies. He found it difficult to place the peripheral nerve within his classification of disorders; it appeared to be an exception to his theories. Even the pathology that he described in 1886 with Pierre Marie (1853-1940), at the same time as Henry Tooth (1856-1925), and which is now known as Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy, was considered by Charcot to be a potential myelopathy. Charcot, like other physicians, paid little heed to the observations made by Louis Duménil (1823-1890) to support the existence of primitive damage to the peripheral nerve. Charcot approached peripheral nerve pathologies through two indirect routes: amyotrophies not explained by spinal or muscular damage, and the trophic cutaneous consequences of what he called névrites (neuritis), the lesional site of which remains debated. It is noteworthy that Charcot's approach to peripheral nervous system disorders differed from that of other neurologists of the same time. Augusta Dejerine-Klumpke (1859-1927) in France was more precise than Charcot in her anatomical and clinical descriptions, and Hugo von Ziemssen (1829-1902) in Germany made effective use of electrodiagnostics. Charcot supported the electrical work of Guillaume Duchenne de Boulogne (1806-1875), whom he sometimes presented as one of his mentors. The German physician Wilhelm Erb (1840-1921) developed electrodiagnosis by galvanic and faradic currents. Charcot never made use of Erb's electrological advancements. With his electrophysiologist Romain Vigouroux (1831-1911), Charcot used medical electricity only for electrotherapy in hysteria.

Wilder Penfield is known for his contributions to the structure-function relationship of the brain and for the surgical treatment of focal epilepsy. Less well known are his contributions to the study of glial cells and his investigation of their role in human neuropathology. Penfield learned the gold and silver methods for staining neurons, glial cells, and their projections from Charles Sherrington and Pío del Río-Hortega. He and his colleague William Cone established a laboratory for the study of glial cells and human neuropathology using metallic stains, initially at the Presbyterian Hospital in New York City in 1925, and then at the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1928. Penfield, Cone, and their research fellows, building on the findings of Río-Hortega, confirmed the existence of oligodendrocytes and their relationship with myelin, and investigated the putative mesodermal origin of microglia. They discovered the reaction of oligodendrocytes to pathological stressors, and the phagocytic activity of microglia in human gliomas. In this article, we argue that Penfield's studies of astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and microglia, and their responses to craniocerebral trauma, epilepsy, malignant brain tumors, and other pathologies of the central nervous system inaugurated a new era in clinical neurocytology and neuropathology.

The Polish Institute for Brain Research was established in Warsaw in 1928 to support scientific research on the brain and its functions. The director of the institute was Maksymilian Rose (1883-1937), a distinguished Polish neurologist and neuroanatomist, a disciple of Oskar Vogt and Korbinian Brodmann. In 1931, the Institute was moved from Warsaw to Vilnius. The Institute was well-known in Europe at the time because of the research in the fields of neuroscience, clinical neurology, and psychiatry, as well as the cytoarchitectonic analysis of social activists' brains-a fashionable, neophrenological way to link the mental functions of deceased geniuses with the cellular composition of their central nervous systems. In 1939, the work of the Institute was interrupted by World War II; some of the preparations and materials were moved from Vilnius to Warsaw, some were stored in Vilnius, and some were lost. In this article, we analyze the primary and secondary sources, some of which were obscure for over 80 years, and evaluate the most important scientific achievements of the Polish Institute for Brain Research, as well as its legacy in the early period of modern neuroscience and neurology in interwar Vilnius.

Scholars usually consider the , published in 1600 by André du Laurens, as an obsolete defense of Galenic principles against the novelty of Vesalian material. Although du Laurens's book plagiarized many illustrations from Vesalius's (1543), critics such as Choulant insisted that the 's iconography had "no particular anatomical or artistic value." However, four of the 's engravings appear to be original. One of these, the , is now famous for depicting the intradural spinal nerves as a horsetail, leading to the addition of the term to the anatomical lexicon. A less flamboyant figure from the same plate shows small blood vessels coursing over the surface of the cervical spinal cord. This drawing may be the first published depiction of anterior spinal arteries and veins.

António Egas Moniz, born in 1874, was a pioneer in neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry who brought about important changes in the 1920s using groundbreaking brain imaging techniques, such as cerebral angiography. This innovative procedure allowed the visualization of brain structures, leading to many advances in neurology and neurosurgery. Moniz also made noteworthy contributions to psychosurgery, including the development of prefrontal lobotomy. Although initially praised for his inventive techniques, lobotomy sparked ethical debates and public controversies due to its adverse effects and questionable scientific foundation. Moniz's was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1949 and received various honors in Portugal for his scientific, literary, and artistic achievements. His work continues to influence the field of neuroscience, and angiography remains a crucial imaging method for diagnosing and treating brain disorders. Moniz's complex legacy highlights the intricate balance between medical advances, ethical considerations, and public perceptions in the history of medicine.

The hundredth anniversary of the death of French histologist Louis Ranvier (1835‒1922) is an opportunity to reexamine his elaboration of the first concept of the Schwann cell. A loyal supporter of Theodor Schwann and his discoveries, and an attentive reader of the work of Albert von Kölliker, Ranvier studied the anatomic details of the myelinated nerve fiber with picrocarminate staining. The diffusion of the dye into the nerve fiber at the cut ends and at the sites of the annular constrictions (Ranvier's nodes) set him on the path to defining a new cellular entity surrounding the axon, the "interannular segment," comprising a Schwann nucleus, myelin, and cytoplasm. Ramón y Cajal recognized in 1913 that this concept of the Schwann cell according to Ranvier and his pupil William Vignal had been a brilliant intuition, but it was widely rejected until it was rediscovered using electron microscopy in the 1950s. The article reconstructs the steps of Ranvier and Vignal in building this Schwann cell concept, as well as establishing bridges with the discoveries of the 1950s.