The starting point of reference in the article is the iconological analysis, as it was formulated by Aby Warburg (1866-1929). In contrast to those, who claim that only one of two selected by A. Warburg aspects of the method – «apollonian» and «dionisian» – was developed, the thesis of the article, based on the material concerned with the questions of history of medicine, published in the «Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes», outlines the stability of the method in its diversity. The emphasizing of two tendencies, following the development of the iconology: one of them was offered by Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968) and was developed in the direction of increasing the proportion of the structuralism theory, the other, the variation of the history of ideas, was focused on the investigation of magic and hermetic practice – confirms the thesis.
This book offers an innovative engagement with the diverse histories of colonial and indigenous medicines. Engagement with different kinds of colonialism and varied indigenous socio-political cultures has led to a wide range of approaches and increasingly distinct traditions of historical writing about colonial and indigenous modes of healing have emerged in the various regions formerly ruled by different colonial powers. The volume offers a much-needed opportunity to explore new conceptual perspectives and encourages critical reflection on how scholars' research specialisms have influenced their approaches to the history of medicine and healing. The book includes contributions on different geographical regions in Asia, Africa and the Americas and within the varied contexts of Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Dutch and British colonialisms. It deals with issues such as internal colonialism, the plural history of objects, transregional circulation and entanglement, and the historicisation of medical historiography. The chapters in the volume explore the scope for conceptual interaction between authors from diverse disciplines and different regions, highlighting the synergies and thematic commonalities as well as differences and divergences.
The study concentrates on the range of interpretations of the history of Russian medicine in one of the imperial regions, the Kazakh steppe, and traces their development within different historiographic contexts from the nineteenth century through the Soviet literature to recent Russian, Kazakh and Western scholarly work.
This article studies the physician's attitude to the historical background of their profession, as well as local history of the provinces in the Russian Empire. Using historical texts produced by medics the author identifies, in what way the history of medical profession in the 19th century was described, how did their histories correspond with the development of medicine in the West, and what caesurae were used to separate their narratives into several chronological pieces. The study is based on medico-topographical descriptions that help to clarify how and with what intentions the local histories of Russian imperial provinces were written, and what were the differences between them.