Medical Muses: Hysteria in Nineteenth-Century Paris

by Asti Hustvedt

A fascinating study of three young female hysterics who shaped our early notions of psychology.

Blanche, Augustine, and Geneviève found themselves in the hysteria ward of the Salpetrière Hospital in 1870s Paris, where their care was directed by the prominent neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. They became medical celebrities: every week, eager crowds arrived at the hospital to observe their symptoms; they were photographed, sculpted, painted, and transformed into characters in novels. The remarkable story of their lives as patients in the clinic is a strange amalgam of intimate details and public exposure, science and religion, medicine and the occult, hypnotism, love, and theater.

But who were Blanche, Augustine, and Geneviève? What role did they play in their own peculiar form of stardom? And what exactly were they suffering from? Hysteria-with its dramatic seizures, hallucinations, and reenactments of past traumas-may be an illness of the past, but the notions of femininity that lie behind it offer insights into disorders of the present.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Medicine, France, Medical

372 pages, Hardcover

First published May 23, 2011

Reviews

[Lynne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book reads like watching a really, really good documentary. Material that could have ended up being a bit dry read easily. I love that there doesn't seem to be a particular agenda on the author's part and that they give space to all sorts of viewpoints and acknowledge other people's/institution's possible (or overt) agendas. Interesting content.

[Jaksen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to skim a lot of this...

The story of three women diagnosed with 'hysteria' and what probably was 'wrong' with them. There are photographs of said women and I just want to say this about that...

I have similar photos of my great-grandmothers, and other women from the late 1800' and early 1900's and boy, they look the same. Hands next to faces, cherub-like grins, eyes up to heaven, etc. I know this was standard for the time, but if you put these next to the hysterical women in the book, small difference...

Except for ones where they're hanging loose, necks arched, bodies in almost a u-shape as the women go through hysterics, or seizures, or maybe they're just great actresses. The point I'm trying to make is that even when these women were in a 'spasm,' or whatever, they are putting on the face and characteristics that many women would have done in a studio photograph. (Forget the austere, forgetful type photos where everyone lines up and looks straight ahead, I'm not talking about those.)

So whereas I did read some sections, highly interesting, I skimmed others. My take? I think, even if these women did have medical conditions, some of this is posed. They gave the doctors and other specialists what they think these men wanted.

Anyhow, three stars, mostly for medical and historical research and content. Two off because I think these women were pulling a fast one, at least to some degree.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

First off, the author is the sister of the wife of my favorite living novelist! Small world. Second, I was assigned this book in a psychoanalytic study group.

Thirdly, I find the history of science, the history of medicine, psychiatry and psychotherapy fascinating. I'm interested in France and French culture.

This book is well written and interesting enough. I wondered at her tracking down some "research" minutia that I didn't really worry about, at times, but she was a hound dog on the scent of a story and she does seem to be thorough.

I think she makes an interesting point when she notices that Charcot at least treated the women, and didn't dismiss their problems at all, or as psychosomatic.

As a therapist it's not surprising that there's a mind/body connection. And that when people express suffering that that shouldn't be dismissed even if it's got self pity and complaining in it.

I found it interesting to note that a man who presented evidence (not interpretation) that women suffer from the modern equivalent of mass hysteria got booed off the stage at a presentation. There's still a lingering gender politics around the word "hysteria". Fascinating book, glad I read it. It read smooth and I could read it fairly rapidly.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Medical Muses is a fascinating exploration of the darkness of the human mind and the bizarre lengths one scientist--Jean-Martin Charcot--went to exploring it in the famous Parisian medical establishment Salpêtrière Hospital. Already a famous researcher and clinician, Charcot took on the task of documenting and exhibiting "hysteria" in the final decades of the 19th century. Hustvedt focuses on him and three of his prime, "star," patients--Blanche, Augustine, and Geneviève--as a means of describing for the reader what is tantamount to a small hysteria about hysteria.

Charcot, a neurologist, believed there was a physical explanation for hysteria, although he didn't know what it was, couldn't find it in postmortems, and in fact made no consistent attempts to cure it. In a way, he saw his role as describing hysteria, first relocating its origin beyond the uterus (easily enough done since some men were known hysterics), and then developing a kind of dramaturgy around it. A good hysteric would go from a sense of an episode coming on to forms of rigidity or lethargy followed by bizarre physical posturing (known as "clowning") and ultimately a period of delirium, which could be babbling, dreaming-out-loud, being unreachable to reason, having visions, hearing voices, or succumbing to fear, passion...virtually any emotion subject to intensity. An hysteric is never simply amused, droll, dry, witty, or ironic. The word for Charcot's hysterics is histrionic.

Hustvedt's research is massive and spellbinding. She describes a hospital that housed thousands of women in conditions of "insanity" or despair or incapacity with a core of some hundreds of hysterics kept in a special ward. Charcot and his assistants monitored the hysterics closely. On certain days, he would march into an amphitheater that held 400 spectators (including actresses, writers, politicians, other doctors, journalists, and the generally curious) and trot out the likes of Blanche, Augustine, or Geneviève to be hypnotized and then led through the phases of the illness. Hypnosis was largely discredited as a scientific phenomenon by Charcot's time, but he brought it back into vogue. Under hypnosis, an hysteric might experience no pain when punctured with a sharp object, bark like a dog, bend over backwards and place her hands on the floor like a contortionist, have her ovaries squeezed to quiet her symptoms with a device something like a chastity belt, experience her numb spots move from the right side to the left side of her body when she was touched with a special metal or an electrode, cry out in ecstasy, or perform acts, some erotic, due to post-hypnotic suggestions.

People loved watching this. They loved the review that publicized Charcot's work with photographs of the women frozen in impossible positions, ecstasy, prayer, or agony. And the best of the hysterics, our aforementioned trio, generally, but not always, performed with convincing gusto.

Charcot wasn't a charlatan. He was deadly serious and profoundly successful in identifying conditions that remain recognized to this day (ALS, for example). Under his direction, the Salpêtrière gained in order, cleanliness, humanity, and renown. But he did not have, until the final years of his life, any sense that the body was connected to the mind. This overstates the case, but only slightly. He was a 19th century scientist, a so-called positivist, committed to material reality. So there had to be an organic cause for hysteria...had to be.

Hustvedt does two things wonderfully: She draws detailed pictures of the three aforementioned female stars of the play and she concludes the book with musing about the analogs of hysteria today: what is anorexia nervosa? what is bulimia? what is depression? what is cutting? what went from being soldier's heart to shell shock to Gulf War Syndrome to PTSD? We lump many things under the heading of psychogenic diseases; then we alter the way we lump them; then we subdivide them. Hustvedt doesn't crusade about this, but when you read this book and the utterly incredible nature of late-19th century hysterics (preceded by the utterly incredible behaviors and symptoms of Catholic saints), you lose any reservations you might have had about the interconnectedness of the mind and body.

Suppose a young woman cuts off her left nipple. Suppose her skin, traced over by a stylus, is susceptible to manifesting a doctor's autograph for days afterward in raised lettering. Suppose she freezes in an unbreakable crouch. Suppose you can put her in a straitjacket over and over again and she always gets out, often by chewing her way through. Where does the energy come from to do these things? where does it reside? how is it loosed? why does it follow set sequences?

Freud spent 4 months attending Charcot's lectures and demonstrations. He, too, was a positivist on arrival in Paris, meaning he had not yet thrown his lot in with the psychogenic. When he returned to Vienna and hung out his shingle, he tried hypnosis but didn't have success. (He didn't use a gong or a gold watch on a chain, his method was pressing his hand on a patient's forehead.) So he came up with the idea of just letting a patient talk, "free associate." His focus was not so much on physical symptoms, it was a focus on the mind. So 400 people couldn't watch as the "talking cure" evolved, yet in some ways, Freud's misjudgments and scanty documentation notwithstanding, the mind become the star of the 20th century's new play thanks to his efforts and --here I'll give you a new word or remind you that you have always known it but not seen it used for years -- indagations. (My spell check went into hysterics over that one, by the way.)

Today we continue to look for chemical solutions to mental/psychological issues, and we have had great success, but as Charcot was fond of quoting, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Penelope · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is really interesting, although I sometimes found it difficult to figure out exactly what Hustvedt was arguing. She seems to waiver between arguing that hysteria was indeed a "real" illness while also arguing that it was a manifestation of socially constructed/suggested symptoms. I guess in the end she really is arguing for both points--that is, that these women were suffering from a real illness, which was manifested in symptoms that were medically acceptable. Ultimately, there is still a lot of mystery around what exactly was going on, but we're given a glimpse within the pages of this book.

I found all the chapters of Medical Muses intriguing but I think Genevieve's story was the most fascinating to me. While discussing Genevieve's story, Hustvedt weaves in information about saints, demonic possession, and the intersection of art and hysteria (also mentioned in other chapters, but I found the section in Genevieve's chapter particularly interesting). It's amazing how medicine and religion were intertwined, even while scientists attempted to discredit religion (ironically, as Hustvedt points out, shifting the power dynamic from one patriarchal institution to another).

There's no doubt that these women were treated horrifically, usually as medical experiments rather than human beings. Yet, despite their treatment, the hospital undeniably provided them some sort of "safe haven". In reference to Genevieve, Hustvedt notes that she almost certainly would have been burned at the stake if she had lived a century earlier. Comforting. Hustvedt attempts to demonstrate how Charcot and his medical staff took a more "enlightened" approach to their practice (although she does, of course, note how inappropriate much of their conduct was) but they often undid their own "progressive" views. For example, Charcot attempted to dismantle the previously held belief that hysteria was a disease afflicting only women, claiming that while women were more likely to suffer from it, men could as well. Nonetheless, he identified hysterogenic zones specific to the female body (such as the ovaries). How is one to use an ovarian compressor on a male? I think it would have been beneficial if Hustvedt could have dug up a case study of a male hysteric--it would have been interesting to note the differences in treatment (or even diagnosis).

Before reading this book I read a number of reviews on Amazon, about half of which are 1-star. Most of them share the same criticisms and most refer to the final chapter of the book in which Hustvedt describes how hysteria fits in to contemporary medicine. I'm no medical expert, so I can't comment on whether the literature to which she refers is really cutting edge, or if she was referencing out-dated material (if the critics are correct, her research for this section of the book could have been better). Nonetheless, I thought this final, short chapter was quite interesting and even if Hustvedt's facts weren't quite right the general idea holds strong. How should the medical community handle illnesses that seem to be without biological cause? And why should such illnesses be considered any less real, just because they can't be treated with a pill?

[Sunday · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting history of the study of hysteria at the Salpetriere Hospital in Paris. The author details the treatment of 3 women, portrayed as both victims and participants in Charcot's methods, or some would say, experiments. If you work in health care it's hard to not feel outraged at the treatment of these traumatised women - but then this would be to apply today's knowledge to a time when psychiatry was still so very young.

[Orsolya · Rating 4 out of 5]

There was a period in not-so-long ago history; when the medical society attributed the condition of ‘hysteria’ to the female sex. Combining symptoms of epilepsy, mental illness, and ‘demonic’ possessions; the debate of the causes and pathology of hysteria was the fashionable conversation. In fact, hysteria caused mass hysteria in itself and became an almost celebrity-like form of entertainment. At the very center of this was the neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot of the Salpetriere Hospital and three of his ‘star’ patients: Blanche, Augustine, and Genevieve. Asti Husvedt portraits this topic in, “Medical Muses: Hysteria in Nineteenth-Century Paris”.

Husvedt’s “Medical Muses” serves as a part expose, part romp, splash of medical historical portrait, and educational soiree all wrapped into one seamless piece of writing. Hustvedt brings the topic to life by exploring the background of hysteria, the medical focus, Dr. Charcot, and the actual case studies of Blanche, Augustine, and Genevieve. Although this could lay the foundation for a clumsy, disjointed text; Husvedt reins the topic in with an entertaining and easy-to-read style that also memorably informs. In fact, her panache for not overusing technical jargon but not overly dummying down the text is masterful and hits a sweet spot medium.

“Medical Muses” is truly riveting, encouraging page-turning, providing full-topic coverage, and answering reader questions. The pages delivered by Husvedt are ones that beg to be repeated and are the starters to conversations conversational discourses. There are occasional instances of tangents (albeit, very slight) and repetitive information. Fortunately, Husvedt doesn’t make a habit of this and “Medical Muses” remains quite strong.

In an effortless manner, “Medical Muses” moves with a hearty pace (readers will find themselves not wanting the book to end) and is great serving as both an introduction to the topic or as a research piece. Occasionally, Husvedt slips into a sort of memoir, first-person tone/style but this merely demonstrates her passion for the thesis and her level of conducted research.

Husvedt has a noteworthy ability to not display any biases and presents objective information but without insisting on a dry tone or voice. “Medical Muses” is therefore a joy to read and academically alert.

“Medical Muses” is supplemented with various imaged and illustrations throughout straight from the archives and records of Salpetriere. This not only aids the reader but also adds strength and merit to “Medical Muses”.

Although “Medical Muses” doesn’t primarily focus on superstition or the paranormal; the final section highlights Genevieve and her supposed demonic possession. This brings the connection of hysteria and possession to the forefront while emphasizing the case history; alongside the social history of possessions from the period. The issue with this concluding section is that Husvedt barely speaks of Genevieve and focuses on demonic possession cases outside of the said-subject. The writing strays off on a tangent and loses the focal attention. Granted, this is not to say that Husvedt’s writing is not interesting; but merely that it largely ignored Genevieve and her story.

Even though the ending of “Medical Muses” feels abrupt lacking any emotive appeal and isn’t particularly memorable; the text is redeemed by an ‘Epilogue’ summarizing the pages and also highlighting the historical hysteria viewpoint to the common grounds of today which adds substance to the conclusion.

“Medical Muses” offers a ‘Notes’ section with annotation and a bibliography for Husvedt’s readers seeking more source material on the subject.

Husvedt’s “Medical Muses” is a delightful romp with equal merits of informative structure covering a topic that will satisfy both those new to the subject matter and readers with some prior background. Husvedt presents a piece that is well-researched but readable and entertaining. “Medical Muses” is suggested

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really fascinating discussion of the phenomenon of hysteria as framed by late nineteenth-century French medical practitioners, and of the women who acted as living models of the disease. Small wonder that women who lived these lives--afflicted by poverty, neglect, physical and sexual abuse--should suffer from their experiences. The lens through which their distress and rage were understood, both by their doctors and by themselves, was hysteria, a catch-all medical category that seemed to explain everything while actually explaining almost nothing. Hustvedt does an excellent job of narrating these women's experiences with sympathy for them but without demonizing the doctors, trying to understand their experiences as they and their contemporaries did, balancing between a simultaneous sense of the strangeness and of the relevance and knowability of the past. Highly recommended if you have any interest in medical or women's history.

[Lindsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read in which the author argues that hysteria was a legitimate disease. The reason, she says, we don't see this diagnosis any more is because the symptoms were influenced by the culture, and these women were expressing their mental illness and powerlessness in ways that were expected or encouraged. The primary symptoms were catalepsy (the women turned into a wax doll) lethargy (the women went into a sleep-like state that rendered them helpless), somnambulism (the women would hallucinate on command), and just general hysteric fits.

The most fascinating of the three women profiled is Genevieve, who manifested symptoms similar to female saints (or female heretics burned as witches) who mutilated and starved themselves. Hers is the only chapter I read all the way through without skimming towards the end.

[Lauren · Rating 4 out of 5]

The subject matter of this book is so uniquely fascinating. The author starts by saying she thought she would rescue these women from history, save them from their false labels - and in fact, the opposite is true. It might well be a history of the development of humane care of those with mental health issues, and the understanding that women were not just empty vessels, fit only for marriage and useless in all other regards. It’s difficult to see their treatment through a modern lens as humane, but Augustine, Blanche and Genevieve mark a turning point in psychology and its further development. Absolutely riveting.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Frankly, I found most of the detail surrounding the three 'hysterical' women primarily covered in the text to be rather boring, though some of the excurses were entertaining and informative. Most interesting is the epilogue which relates this discredited nosological curiosity to current debates about physical as opposed to psychological diagnostic predispositions when, in fact, there is no scientifically determined etiology (the current prejudice in the psychiatric community being physicalist).

[Tatiana · Rating 4 out of 5]

A carefully researched and extremelly well written book that should be accessible to anyone who has an interest in the subject. I am left with a lot of questions and thoughts and a curiosity to learn more about many of the subjects that the book deals with.

[Hollowspine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Medical Muses is a book that explores the treatment and study of hysterics by Charcot in 19th Century France, but also shows a parallel to the climate surrounding treatment of similar conditions today. Asti Hustvedt's research shows her passion for the subject, she goes above and beyond in her researches to present the truth regarding the famous hysterics of Salpetriere Hospital as much as possible. She presents every aspect of both patients and doctors delving into their personal histories and biases in order to present a very interesting and I believe accurate glimpse inside the workings of Charcot's Hospital.

Her research delves not only into the claims of hysteria in the patients and whether or not the illness was feigned or real, but also in the battle between science and religion for authority over the (mainly female) bodies in asylums and hospital wards. It also paints a picture of what it was like for many women in 19th century France, and how some struggled for power in a world where they were not even allowed authority over their own bodies.

This would be a great source for anyone doing research on psycho-somatic disorders, whether in the past or in our current medical culture. Also, for anyone studying either religious or medical authorities over women throughout time. Although I wouldn't say it was as captivating to the lay person as The Poisoner's Handbook, it was not a dry text book, and was very well written, with quite a few captivating illustrations and scandalous situations to titillate interspersed with the moral and medical questions that leave the reader with a few things to mull over at the end of the day.

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this up from my local bookstore on a whim as it looked interesting. I've read a previous book about the development of the vibrator as a treatment for hysteria but had never come across the events occurring in France back in the 1860s. I'm familiar with Charcot, Tourette and some of the others, though didn't realise they all worked together in this way at the Salpetriere. I didn't get on with the style to start with (it reads a little like a more adept essay) but soon got wrapped up in the fascinating accounts of hysteria,the people,the theories and the time. It's a wonderful collection of character studies and anecdotes bringing to life a different time and avert different illness. Who know what was really going on but it makes for an intriguing read. I could have done without the final chapter portraying the 'modern' forms of hysteria afflicting people today but overall this was an enthralling and educational read. Well recommended for those with an interest in medical history, bizarre conditions and humanity.

[Victoria Olsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Clearly written and well researched, this book is certainly worth reading. Hustvedt dug up interesting information about three case studies of "hysterical" women in Charcot's famous hospital in Paris. She is very smart and thoughtful and she makes a good case for the blurry lines between medicine, religion, the paranormal, and the emerging field of psychology. As another reviewer noted, though, the book could use a better structure that wove the themes together into a more coherent argument. The editing could have been better too: there was too much repetition. Still, I enjoyed the book and would be interested in her next one.

[Nat Evans]

Really interesting look at historical cases of a disease that technically doesn't exist anymore or can be considered the earliest recognition of mental health awareness. A little repetitive in the case studies but the photography included was fascinating and there could have been more.

[Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

The term "hysterical" is still being bandied around very casually, usually to describe a woman displaying excessive emotion. And so it's interesting to be reminded that in the 19th century, "hysteria" was a medical diagnosis, of special interest to Charcot in the Salpetriere hospital in Paris.

The contributions of Charcot to neurology, and his influence on Sigmund Freud, are well known. But the focus on this book is his interest in hysteria, and his conviction that it was a neurological condition worthy of serious study.

Now, that is where the controversy starts. What, exactly, does "serious study" mean? Or rather: what did it mean in the context of a 19th century public hospital for (poor) women? Charcot and his disciples prodded and poked, hypnotized, provoked hysterical attacks and stopped them, often in public lectures. The relationships between the doctors and female patients was not at all what would be considered appropriate nowadays, varying from romantic relationships to paternalistic "I know what's best for you". And so one way to review this page of medical history is to see it as abuse and exploitation of poor, uneducated women by the medical establishment.

But the author also proposes a different interpretation: were the doctors duped by their patients, who obligingly displayed all the symptoms their doctors felt they "should" have? As the book indicates by reviewing 3 of Charcot's "star patients", being a "good hysteric" came with benefits, privileges, status, and even a certain level of celebrity. And life in the Salpetriere was, at least for some destitute patients, better than eking out a living as domestic servant, laundress or prostitute.

Blanche was the star patient, in the sense that she consistently displayed all the symptoms that Charcot had described as being typical of hysteria. She participated in public lectures, and is the subject of a famous painting of Charcot's lectures. For a while she was a minor celebrity, and after the decline of Charcot's reputation, she became an X-ray technician in the Salpetriere.

Augustine was perhaps less of a perfect hysteric, but she was frequently photographed. Her pictures are classical illustrations of the "grande hysterie". She got fed up with life in the Salpetriere and escaped from it in male disguise.

Genevieve, who suffered religious mania in addition to hysteria, was cited as evidence of Charcot's theory that saints, witches and demonic possessions were actually cases of hysteria.

Hysteria, as a diagnosis, had its heyday, and then fell out of fashion. What, exactly, was wrong with these women? Were they consummate actresses, capable of withstanding needle pricks or worse without flinching? Capable of contorting themselves in difficult poses and maintaining them for hours? How can the phenomenon of dermographia be explained? Were they simply super-suggestible, adapting unconsciously to what was expected of them in the knowledge that being a hysteric at the Salpetriere was better than living out on the streets of Paris? The author doesn't offer an explanation - I don't think there is one. But by digging into the past of these young women, she did demonstrate how traumatic their lives had been: abject poverty, unstable family situation, rejection, sexual abuse at the hands of their employers. These are the types of experiences that still plague young women, but nowadays the expression of these traumas tends to be different: anorexia, self-cutting, anxiety.

I found this book both informative and thought-provoking. The research was thorough and I learned a lot that went beyond the sensational cliches of Charcot's hysterics. The book went beyond the easy interpretation of "poor women being exploited by male doctors" and explored the almost symbiotic relationship between the doctors who needed hysterical patients, and the traumatized women who found some level of attention and care at the Salpetriere. I had not really given much thought to the different ways in which women express their traumas and the threats to their mental healths.

Final note: after closing the book, I realized that the author is the sister of Siri Hustvedt, who wrote her own book on the intersection of neurology and psychiatry, titled "The Shaking Woman".

[Kirsten Voris · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is the difference between a woman in the throws of religious passion and a woman gripped by a hysterical attack?

In her book Medical Muses: Hysteria in Nineteenth-Century Paris, writer Asti Hustvedt takes on hysteria in the days before Freud, focusing on Doctor Jean-Martin Charcot who spent his career codifying and searching for the organic source of a syndrome that flourished at the Salpêtriére, the largest medical institution in Europe, and all but vanished with Charcot’s death. With compassion, and in-depth research, Hustvedt describes rise and fall of hysteria through three of Charcot’s "star" patients: Blanche, Augustine, and Geneviéve.

Subject to public viewings, hysterics at Paris’s Salpêtriére Hospital became celebrities, artists’ muses, characters in novels. They lived in a self-contained city that was part fishbowl and part research institute, where relations between patients and interns were common and women from the lowest rungs of society, thanks to their diagnoses, were granted a measure of freedom unheard of on the outside--or in asylums for the insane, where any of the Salpêtriére hysterics might otherwise be housed.

While religious passion was easily written off by non-believers, Charcot’s work was firmly anchored in the science of the era. Although Charcot never found an organic cause for hysteria, he took his patients’ distress seriously. According to Charcot, whose accomplishments include discovering the pathology of ALS, Hustvedt writes, "'hysterical' did not mean 'not real.'"

Comparing hysteria with modern syndromes, Hustvedt critiques our ongoing habit of privileging disease with "real" origins, like cancer, as opposed to investing resources in the study of chronic fatigue and other illnesses with no known organic source which, like hysteria before them, primarily affect women.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was certainly an interesting history. Hustvedt steers quite narrowly on her subject matter, the three “stars” of the Saltpetriere, at times leaving the reader searching for a bit more context on the rest of the institution and its inhabitants besides that which is given in the first chapter. Her tone is meditative, which makes for a very fluid read, but she approaches a polemicism nearing the end of the book that I think would have served the rest very well.

In a sense the book revolves around what can be divided into two central questions: was the hysteria of the Saltpetriere patients “real” or “fake,” and whichever it was, who among doctor and patient was its cause? Hustvedt quite convincingly argues for her rejection of the first dichotomy, however she attempts to resolve the second with a somewhat uneasy synthesis, with a certain sympathy towards Charcot’s project. This is where a more explicitly political outlook may have helped. What we see in part through the book is the attendant rearrangement of women’s social domination to the necessities of industrialized capitalist society. She elides many of these connections very well, but can at times be vague about her attributions of motivation.

[mxd · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is such a hard book to review because my immediate thought after finishing it was 'this is the most mental thing I've ever read'. On one hand, of course, the further back you go in history to look at the treatment of women and mental illness, the more appalling it's bound to be, yet on the other hand, I was continually horrified at how the women being treated for their conditions were turned into exhibits or the starlets of hysteria by doctors who were more like directors. Still, Hustvedt makes a valid point when she says that at least this so-called condition of hysteria was being taken seriously as an illness that needed exploration and understanding (despite the levels of skank reached during the exploration). Also, another good commentary on the impact of religion on women's lives (fast track to crazy town in any century).

[Petra · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be honest, I'm not sure about this book. On one hand, it has some interesting points, some food for thought and some interesting stories, but on the other hand, I'm not sure what exactly is the overall point of view of the book, what is the author trying to say. Is she trying to make a point about our current medicine? Is she trying to make a point about past hysteric women and their treatment? I'm not even sure what her opinion of those women and the doctors is. Or is she just trying to map the time period and present information? For that, she inserts her opinions too much... So... what is the overall goal of this book?

[wewerb0rntodie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this non-fiction work about hysteria in the 19th century a lot , perhaps more than I thought I would have .
Talks mainly about Charcot how he came to deal with hysteria as well as the three hysteric young women who stayed at the Salpetriere. From Blanche named the “queen of hysteria “ to Augustine “ the most photogenic” and considered ”the most attractive “ of them all .Leading to Genevieve mostly known for her bond with demonic possessions and religion in the 17 th century .
It concludes the downfall of Charcot and the end of hysteria after his death .

[Christiane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was vaguely looking around for a book that would enlighten me on the subject of Jean-Martin Charcot and his work on hysteria at the Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris in the second half of the 19th century. As luck would have it, I came across Asti Hustvedt’s “Medical Muses” and it was just perfect : a meticulously researched, well written und totally fascinating account of a disease that no longer exists as such. It basically lived and died with the famous neurologist (from the 1870s to 1893).

[Sally Kilpatrick]

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this book. It's a DEEP DIVE into the studies on hysteria by Charcot and contains the lives of three women in particular: Blanche, Augustine, and Genevieve.

Mainly, if I never heard the words "ovarian compression" again, I'll be okay.

Fascinating stuff albeit sometimes so dedicated to detail that it gets a bit slow. I'm leaning towards charlatans, although, as in all things, the truth lies somewhere in between.

[Ellie MacArthur · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really like how Hustvedt stripped the history of hysteria back to the women of the story - often these texts centre on Charcot, or simply the spectacle of the Salpêtrière so this is an interesting take. I’m doing my dissertation on the Salpêtrière and this is the text which most informed my method. Would really recommend!

[RavensScar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well researched book. This book is about a medical condition that in late 1800s was called hysteria. It tells about 3 women who supposedly suffer from this condition. And it tells about the doctor (dr. Charcot) who oversaw their treatment.

[Lisanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating book about the Salpetrière hospital and their research into 'hysteria' and the whole cult that surrounded this. Other research done by the hospital is mentioned briefly as well and makes me want to dive more into the history of modern medicine and psycho-analysis/psychotherapy.

[Inês Ramires · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting insight of hysteria in paris in the 19th century. Sometimes the information was a bit tiresome and sometimes it was really cool. Overall a good read

[Mai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely amazing! So much information packed into a well written book. I love it! :D

[Claire Van Dyk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vacillated between utterly fascinating and achingly dull, worthy of 5 stars and 1 star so 3 stars will do.