The Great Stink of Paris and the Nineteenth-Century Struggle against Filth and Germs
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
As recent examples attest, managing an environmental or infectious crisis, real or perceived, requires understanding more than the science. The Great Stink of Paris and the Nineteenth-Century Struggle against Filth and Germs, by historian of science David S. Barnes, provides historical examples and cultural perspectives that can prove useful today.
What was the Great Stink (or, perhaps more accurately, what were the Great Stinks)? For more than 2 months, from late July to early October 1880, a disgusting stench assaulted Parisian nostrils. Despite lack of sound evidence, there was a consensus that these apparently fecal odors "represented an urgent danger to the public health." Parisians voiced outrage and demanded government action. From time to time in ensuing summers, unpleasant odors again assaulted the city. Then, from June to August 1895, another severe stink prevailed. As before, inhabitants expressed disgust and demanded government action. This time, however — with the germ theory of disease much more widely accepted by the public — the populace no longer considered the odors themselves capable of harming health.
Barnes, who also wrote The Making of a Social Disease: Tuberculosis in Nineteenth-Century France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), places the Great Stink(s) in a variety of historical contexts. Among them are political tensions and social trends in France at the time; the growth of Paris and the history of its systems to dispose of human wastes; the emergence of the field of public health, and of its emphasis on hygiene, in 19th-century France; the historical development of disgust at bodily substances, especially human excrement; and the history of theories of disease causation, including the germ theory. Major concepts include what Barnes terms the sanitary-bacteriological synthesis: the melding, which continues today, of long-standing views associating filth and disease and the newer awareness of the causative role of microbes. ("Medical truth," Barnes observes, "must resonate with cultural truth.") An especially engaging section of the book depicts the establishment and operation of the Parisian municipal disinfection service, which during the 1890s disinfected tens of thousands of lodgings in which contagious diseases had recently occurred.
The book reflects assiduous scholarship. Barnes draws extensively on primary sources, especially archives and newspapers, and he integrates his work with that of other scholars. His translations of writings originally in French read well. The text is supported by maps, photographs, tables, a graph, and cartoons from the day. Occasional wit enlivens the text, as do catchy quotations. However, extensive historical detail, considerable abstraction in places, and a sometimes weighty style render much of the text relatively dense.
Neither the style nor the subject matter of The Great Stink of Paris suits it for light lunchtime reading. The book, though, has much to offer those who invest the effort. A well-developed study in medically related social history, it tells an intriguing tale and prompts us to ask how our own cultural contexts affect our views and actions regarding environmental and infectious scourges here and now.
Barbara Gastel, M.D., M.P.H.
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
bgastel@cvm.tamu.edu(By David S. Barnes. 314 p)
What was the Great Stink (or, perhaps more accurately, what were the Great Stinks)? For more than 2 months, from late July to early October 1880, a disgusting stench assaulted Parisian nostrils. Despite lack of sound evidence, there was a consensus that these apparently fecal odors "represented an urgent danger to the public health." Parisians voiced outrage and demanded government action. From time to time in ensuing summers, unpleasant odors again assaulted the city. Then, from June to August 1895, another severe stink prevailed. As before, inhabitants expressed disgust and demanded government action. This time, however — with the germ theory of disease much more widely accepted by the public — the populace no longer considered the odors themselves capable of harming health.
Barnes, who also wrote The Making of a Social Disease: Tuberculosis in Nineteenth-Century France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), places the Great Stink(s) in a variety of historical contexts. Among them are political tensions and social trends in France at the time; the growth of Paris and the history of its systems to dispose of human wastes; the emergence of the field of public health, and of its emphasis on hygiene, in 19th-century France; the historical development of disgust at bodily substances, especially human excrement; and the history of theories of disease causation, including the germ theory. Major concepts include what Barnes terms the sanitary-bacteriological synthesis: the melding, which continues today, of long-standing views associating filth and disease and the newer awareness of the causative role of microbes. ("Medical truth," Barnes observes, "must resonate with cultural truth.") An especially engaging section of the book depicts the establishment and operation of the Parisian municipal disinfection service, which during the 1890s disinfected tens of thousands of lodgings in which contagious diseases had recently occurred.
The book reflects assiduous scholarship. Barnes draws extensively on primary sources, especially archives and newspapers, and he integrates his work with that of other scholars. His translations of writings originally in French read well. The text is supported by maps, photographs, tables, a graph, and cartoons from the day. Occasional wit enlivens the text, as do catchy quotations. However, extensive historical detail, considerable abstraction in places, and a sometimes weighty style render much of the text relatively dense.
Neither the style nor the subject matter of The Great Stink of Paris suits it for light lunchtime reading. The book, though, has much to offer those who invest the effort. A well-developed study in medically related social history, it tells an intriguing tale and prompts us to ask how our own cultural contexts affect our views and actions regarding environmental and infectious scourges here and now.
Barbara Gastel, M.D., M.P.H.
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
bgastel@cvm.tamu.edu(By David S. Barnes. 314 p)