In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Meditsina Rossii XVI–XIX vekov
  • John T. Alexander
Mark Borisovich Mirskii. Meditsina Rossii XVI–XIX vekov (Medicine of Russia in the Sixteenth through Nineteenth Centuries). Moscow: Rosspen, 1996. 376 pp. Ill. No price given.

Head of the Department of the History of Medicine and Health Care of the Semashko Institute of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Dr. Mirskii [End Page 713] proclaims this to be a new survey of modern Russian medicine (up to 1917, in effect). It utilizes previous Russian scholarship, published sources, some newly discovered archival sources, and slight consultation of British and German scholarship. Faulting earlier Russian scholarship as one-sided, triumphalist, and ideologically distorted, the author hopes to counter current proposals for “new, unconventional” changes in health care and medical training. In particular, he defends the Russian tradition of state-directed medical services as “a huge advantage” (p. 5). His book seems to be addressed to Russian medical professionals and general readers, with ubiquitous references to “our country” and “Russian medicine.” In the same vein, the “Russian” identity of many individuals with non-Russian names is assumed, and they are often praised for finding a new homeland in Russia; whereas the language of various publications is not specified, although the predominance of Latin is implied.

The text is oddly structured, tediously repetitive, and monotonous in themes and prose style. Many chapters comprise thin series of hagiographical portraits. Shocking ignorance of non-Russian scholarship is displayed throughout. Book-length studies by Nancy Frieden, John Hutchinson, Roderick McGrew, Heinz Müller-Dietz, Samuel Ramer, David Ransel, and this reviewer are all ignored, not to speak of journal articles and anthologies. Such neglect of non-Russian scholarship is pathetic inasmuch as the author praises the international contacts of earlier eras and even defends the general contributions of foreign practitioners. Unfortunately, the general historical and intellectual framework is extremely old-fashioned, with complex controversies grossly oversimplified.

Dr. Mirskii acknowledges the positive role of the Orthodox Church in charitable and medical affairs, and he mentions the role of women, yet he offers few details about any of these topics. No individual female practitioner is treated in detail or depth. By contrast, although he insists that Russian medicine was blissfully free of clashes between physicians and surgeons, he muddles the status of one foreign practitioner within a couple of lines (p. 27) and mistakenly identifies Johann Termont, a Dutch surgeon, as a physician (p. 5). Furthermore, he calls a shadowy 1654 training program for surgeons Russia’s first medical school and contends, against Müller-Dietz, that it trained more than one hundred practitioners, although he admits ignorance about its methods of training (pp. 34–35). Predictably, he declares that Russian surgery attained world-class levels with “the great” Nikolai Pirogov and his followers. He also asserts the pioneering nature of Russian “zemstvo medicine,” which is lauded as a major source of Soviet medical organization and principles. Frieden and Hutchinson have vigorously contested the merits of “zemstvo medicine,” and Mirskii quotes some nineteenth-century criticisms without entering the broader debate. Although he cites private practitioners a few times, we get no sense of their proportions in the overall professional medical picture, and he fails to mention that many state medical practitioners also practiced privately. Short shrift is given to the nature of the Russian state at various times, and to its administrative peculiarities and traditions. Indeed, Mirskii displays scant familiarity with the larger scholarly literature on Russian history over the last few decades in Russian and other languages. [End Page 714]

The book looks shabby. Its illustrations are conventional and muddy, and chapter 10 lacks footnote numbers for the first ten endnotes (pp. 176–80, 353). Some foreign names are garbled, such as “Willie” instead of “Wylie” (p. 188), and the term “Saint Anthony’s Fire” is used quite loosely. The English summary is a pitiful mess (p. 2).

John T. Alexander
University of Kansas
...

Share