Conan Doyle | University of Cambridge (original) (raw)

Recorded Talks by Conan Doyle

Papers by Conan Doyle

Board of Graduate Studies Please note that you will also need to bind a copy of this Declaration ... more Board of Graduate Studies Please note that you will also need to bind a copy of this Declaration into your final, hardbound copy of thesis-this has to be the very first page of the hardbound thesis. 3 Signature Date Corresponding Regulation Before being admitted to a degree, a student shall deposit with the Secretary of the Board one copy of his or her hardbound dissertation and one copy of the summary (bearing student's name and thesis title), both the dissertation and the summary in a form approved by the Board. The Secretary shall deposit the copy of the dissertation together with the copy of the summary in the University Library where, subject to restricted access to the dissertation for a specified period of time having been granted by the Board of Graduate Studies, they shall be made available for consultation by readers in accordance with University Library Regulations and copies of the dissertation provided to readers in accordance with applicable legislation.

Medical History

Yet, even as these modern epidemics were marked by heightened fears of foreigners, sharpened soci... more Yet, even as these modern epidemics were marked by heightened fears of foreigners, sharpened social divisions, and racialised policies of border control and quarantine, they could also be sources of solidarity, bringing together working classes, ethnic minorities, colonial subjects and others against state, medical or colonial authorities. While cholera, smallpox and plague are used to exemplify how epidemics could bond one group against another within society, other epidemics are shown to bond together society as a whole. In a chapter on American reactions to yellow fever, Cohn argues that the 1853 epidemic bred new forms of tolerance across class and racial lines, particularly in the American south. However, the outstanding example of unity-in-the-face-of-adversity emerges from the 1918-19 influenza pandemic. Cohn dedicates five chapters to the pandemic, tracing reactions in the United States, Canada, Britain, continental Europe and India. While epidemiologically catastrophic, Cohn's extensive newspaper analysis shows that, above all else, in every country surveyed, collective responses were characterised by 'compassion, volunteerism, and martyrdom' (p. 413), rather than blame or violence. This book exemplifies the great potential of new digital resources for disease history, but also some of the pitfalls. The sheer volume of reactions catalogued and compared is impressive and clearly demonstrates Cohn's central claim that responses within and between epidemics varied extensively. But there is comparatively less in the way of explanation for why such variation existed. A mixture of biological and cultural factors is identified. On the one hand, it is suggested that reactions could stem from the particular etiological, clinical or epidemiological characteristics of a disease; on the other hand, they could stem from particular meanings signified by a disease, the types of people associated with it, the preventive measures employed or the authorities tasked with their implementation. The conclusion that there are 'no easy answers' (p. 539) rings true, but this this not altogether satisfying. Historians of medicine and disease have developed fine-grained contextual analyses of why epidemics became culturally, ideologically and politically charged when and where they did. At turns, Epidemics delivers such analysis, but it is overshadowed by an approach that seeks to broadly delineate epidemics according to those that did or did not spark blame (or compassion). While this approach makes it possible to sift through and organise a vast array of material, the reader is left searching for why, as Cohn suggests, the diseased were generally not attacked in the ancient world, why they were in medieval (plague) and early modern (syphilis) worlds, and why some were (cholera) and were not (influenza) in the modern world. The tension within Epidemics between its breath-taking synthesis of digital sources and its narrow analytical framework makes it difficult to judge what its overall impact will be on the historiography of epidemics. It is, without question, an immensely valuable resource. I have found it especially helpful for teaching students about how online newspapers can be used to systematically reconstruct the multiple perceptions, responses and lived experiences of modern infectious diseases. But by far its most important contribution is to challenge historians to look more closely at the complex ways in which epidemics past have brought people together. This is a critical message for the moment in which we are now living and, if not already, it should be a critical part of our teaching, research and policy agendas.

Board of Graduate Studies Please note that you will also need to bind a copy of this Declaration ... more Board of Graduate Studies Please note that you will also need to bind a copy of this Declaration into your final, hardbound copy of thesis-this has to be the very first page of the hardbound thesis. 3 Signature Date Corresponding Regulation Before being admitted to a degree, a student shall deposit with the Secretary of the Board one copy of his or her hardbound dissertation and one copy of the summary (bearing student's name and thesis title), both the dissertation and the summary in a form approved by the Board. The Secretary shall deposit the copy of the dissertation together with the copy of the summary in the University Library where, subject to restricted access to the dissertation for a specified period of time having been granted by the Board of Graduate Studies, they shall be made available for consultation by readers in accordance with University Library Regulations and copies of the dissertation provided to readers in accordance with applicable legislation.

Medical History

Yet, even as these modern epidemics were marked by heightened fears of foreigners, sharpened soci... more Yet, even as these modern epidemics were marked by heightened fears of foreigners, sharpened social divisions, and racialised policies of border control and quarantine, they could also be sources of solidarity, bringing together working classes, ethnic minorities, colonial subjects and others against state, medical or colonial authorities. While cholera, smallpox and plague are used to exemplify how epidemics could bond one group against another within society, other epidemics are shown to bond together society as a whole. In a chapter on American reactions to yellow fever, Cohn argues that the 1853 epidemic bred new forms of tolerance across class and racial lines, particularly in the American south. However, the outstanding example of unity-in-the-face-of-adversity emerges from the 1918-19 influenza pandemic. Cohn dedicates five chapters to the pandemic, tracing reactions in the United States, Canada, Britain, continental Europe and India. While epidemiologically catastrophic, Cohn's extensive newspaper analysis shows that, above all else, in every country surveyed, collective responses were characterised by 'compassion, volunteerism, and martyrdom' (p. 413), rather than blame or violence. This book exemplifies the great potential of new digital resources for disease history, but also some of the pitfalls. The sheer volume of reactions catalogued and compared is impressive and clearly demonstrates Cohn's central claim that responses within and between epidemics varied extensively. But there is comparatively less in the way of explanation for why such variation existed. A mixture of biological and cultural factors is identified. On the one hand, it is suggested that reactions could stem from the particular etiological, clinical or epidemiological characteristics of a disease; on the other hand, they could stem from particular meanings signified by a disease, the types of people associated with it, the preventive measures employed or the authorities tasked with their implementation. The conclusion that there are 'no easy answers' (p. 539) rings true, but this this not altogether satisfying. Historians of medicine and disease have developed fine-grained contextual analyses of why epidemics became culturally, ideologically and politically charged when and where they did. At turns, Epidemics delivers such analysis, but it is overshadowed by an approach that seeks to broadly delineate epidemics according to those that did or did not spark blame (or compassion). While this approach makes it possible to sift through and organise a vast array of material, the reader is left searching for why, as Cohn suggests, the diseased were generally not attacked in the ancient world, why they were in medieval (plague) and early modern (syphilis) worlds, and why some were (cholera) and were not (influenza) in the modern world. The tension within Epidemics between its breath-taking synthesis of digital sources and its narrow analytical framework makes it difficult to judge what its overall impact will be on the historiography of epidemics. It is, without question, an immensely valuable resource. I have found it especially helpful for teaching students about how online newspapers can be used to systematically reconstruct the multiple perceptions, responses and lived experiences of modern infectious diseases. But by far its most important contribution is to challenge historians to look more closely at the complex ways in which epidemics past have brought people together. This is a critical message for the moment in which we are now living and, if not already, it should be a critical part of our teaching, research and policy agendas.