The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-20-2006, 07:14 AM
Jet Jaguar Jet Jaguar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
What was "brain fever" in the 19th century?

I've been reading a Sherlock Holmes anthology, and a couple of times someone has come down with "brain-fever". I found the modern definition (generic term for encephalitis or meningitis), but that doesn't seem to match the 19th century usage. Then, it seems to be fatigue and enfeeblement caused by excitement or fright or some other strain on the nervous system, can be cured by about two months bed rest, and isn't fatal.

So what was meant by brain fever, circa 1890?
__________________
It's not an adventure unless you need a tent, a passport, and a leather glove for your shooting hand.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-20-2006, 07:23 AM
cckerberos cckerberos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Well, the OED gives "a term for inflammation of the brain, Ďand also for other fevers, as typhus, with brain complicationsí", so perhaps typhus?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-20-2006, 08:00 AM
cranston cranston is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cckerberos
Well, the OED gives "a term for inflammation of the brain, Ďand also for other fevers, as typhus, with brain complicationsí", so perhaps typhus?
It is interesting to read the old descriptions of cuase of death and speculate what their modern, true terminology would be;

'Apoplexy' was usually a stroke

'Neuralgia' must be chronic depression.

'Blasphemous female pollution' probably something to do with periods.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-20-2006, 08:34 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 14,677
Wild assed guess, but I'm personally going to bet on, "Poor Health."

I think that in the grand old days, a lot of people were living in unclean surroundings, and drinking unfiltered water that probably had anything and everything in it from sewage and lead, to rotting corpses. Women generally weren't active and either lived such protected lives as to faint at anything out of the ordinary or more probably simply knew that it was fashionable to seem so, but either way probably they still weren't terribly set up to handle a lot of stress.* And also, with the state of medicine and medical labelling, probably a lot of people were taking semi-poisonous prescriptions or over-the-counter drugs (like opium.)

Added to that, simply they didn't even know what was wrong with people a lot of the time, so given that, "brain fever" could be one of any number of things.

And finally, I think that what may have been of much rarer occurence (fainting, "brain fever", etc.) is more likely to occur in popular literature than real life.

* I would also somewhat wonder when the height of corset-tightening was. I think I recall reading that these could be rather harmful. I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture that showed how such a corset had litterally compacted a woman's body so that her inner organs even had been squished up and down permanently inside her torso.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-20-2006, 08:54 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
I'm betting that you're reading the Sherlock Holmes story "The Naval Treaty". In that one , it's pretty clear that the young official has suffered an immense shock and has gone into a slort of temporary insanity for non-physical reasons. He's had a breakdown because he managed to lose (or more correectly, to have stolen out from under his nose) a State Secret of vital importance. He doesn't actually have any illness due to infection, bacteria, or virus. Saying "an attack of brain fever" sounded nicer than "he went crazy" or "He went insane", and had that encouraging bit of ambiguity that let listeners assume that this was some sort of temporary organic disease.



Fortunately, Holmes was able to bring the case to a satrisfactory and mostly happy conclusion. And Phelps' "brain fever" was actually a clue. Or at least things associated with it were.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-20-2006, 09:07 AM
WotNot WotNot is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northumbria
Posts: 2,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by cranston
'Neuralgia' must be chronic depression.
Neuralgia is nerve pain, surely. Do you mean "neurasthenia"?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-20-2006, 09:38 AM
groman groman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Jaguar
So what was meant by brain fever, circa 1890?
WAG: Viral meningitis
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-29-2014, 07:47 AM
Foxy Jaguar Foxy Jaguar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
I'm reading Sherlock Holmes at present as well and was wondering the same thing. It seems to me to be synonymous with a nervous breakdown.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-29-2014, 08:22 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Yep.

Nothing infectious was implied by the term; it was a Victorian nicety for mental illness.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-29-2014, 09:36 AM
Fretful Porpentine Fretful Porpentine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 5,750
There's an academic article about this that is a pretty interesting read, if you have access to JSTOR. It's by Audrey Peterson, "Brain Fever in Nineteenth-Century Literature: Fact and Fiction," Victorian Studies 19.4 (1976): 445-464. Peterson examines a whole bunch of literary and medical references to "brain-fever." What she concludes, basically, is that people in the nineteenth century seem to have conceived of it as a physical disease characterized by "inflammation of the brain," not just a euphemism for temporary insanity (although temporary mental derangement IS one of the symptoms, making it an especially convenient malady for writers). "Brain-fever" had a recognizable course of symptoms and the potential to be fatal; however, it was caused not by infection, but by a sudden shock or mental distress. (We now know this is medically impossible, but nineteenth-century doctors seem to have fully believed it.)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-10-2014, 11:14 AM
Old Geezer Old Geezer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Medically Impossible?

There are many things that people today think are medically impossible, but they would be shocked at how often they are wrong! For example, based on your comments I would expect you to deny it if asked if depression can cause physical pain. However, according to psychiatrists, that is a fact! There are more than a few cases where mental problems have caused physical disease symptoms and conditions, even death. If their grief at the loss of a loved one is great enough, people can and have decide subconsciously that they "cannot" live without that person in their life. Some would call this dieing of a broken heart, but few doctors would accept that. Instead, thwy would call it something like morbid major depression.

My conclusion is that, whether we understand it or can explain it or not, the mind can be affected in various ways by conditions the person is subjected to and can affect the body in many ways in return. Therefore, although the Victorian doctors' ideas about brain fever may have been off-base regarding the mechanisms, their ideas about the overall effect were not far from the truth. Victorians may have had some odd ideas, but they were not stupid!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-11-2014, 07:42 PM
usedtobe usedtobe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
3rd hit on Google, didn't need to bring it up, was on Google's snippet:
Brain Fever is usually called meningitis or encephalitis today... The hallmark signs of meningitis are sudden fever, severe headache, and a stiff ...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-12-2014, 05:55 AM
casdave casdave is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,538
I just want to put paid to the myth of the delicate Victorian woman who would faint at the merest small provocation.

This has arisen because of the literature stereotypes put about during the 19thC especially by the popular authors, Conan Doyle being one, and also by such as the Bronte's however these delicate women were almost exclusively middle class and being 'delicate' was a form of social fashion - which was often blown out of proportion to illustrate some of the absurdities and hypocrisies of Victorian social mores. Such women formed only a small proportion of the population and cannot be taken as representative.

The real Victorian working woman was very much a different thing altogether - their working conditions were often as poor and horrible as their menfolk, but for less money and poor social rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british..._work_01.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Victorian_era
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-12-2014, 06:02 AM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by casdave View Post
I just want to put paid to the myth of the delicate Victorian woman who would faint at the merest small provocation.
Victorian middle and upper class women were liable to fainting, largely because of the impossible tight corsets they wore, which restricted their breathing.

http://victorianeracnr.blogspot.co.u...an-corset.html
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-12-2014, 09:11 AM
casdave casdave is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,538
As I pointed out, this is only a small subset of women living in Victorian England, probably not more than 2.5% of the population, or around 5% of the female population.

In other word, that stereotype did not apply to 95% of women, and it may well have been fewer than that.

Ordinary working class folk and especially women were often almost invisible in most of English literature of the time, so the few examplars are taken as the norm, when they very much were not.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-12-2014, 09:40 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
"Brain fever" in the Conan Doyle lexicon meant nervous breakdown, not infection, stroke or other malady with obvious pathology. Either you had a shocking experience (like "Tadpole" Phelps), or someone harassed you into a breakdown (like the young woman in the Copper Beeches episode), or you lost it for whatever reason.

As previously noted, it was a "nice" way to describe severe depression or other mental illness that would be diagnosed in a straightforward manner today.

"Brain fever" puzzled me as a young reader of Sherlock Holmes stories, much like other obscure language of the time. For instance, there was a story describing a Lord Something-or-Other who bet on the horses a lot and was described as being "ruined on the turf", which I originally took to mean that he'd suffered a real bad sports hernia.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-12-2014, 10:21 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Geezer View Post
There are many things that people today think are medically impossible, but they would be shocked at how often they are wrong! For example, based on your comments I would expect you to deny it if asked if depression can cause physical pain. However, according to psychiatrists, that is a fact! There are more than a few cases where mental problems have caused physical disease symptoms and conditions, even death. If their grief at the loss of a loved one is great enough, people can and have decide subconsciously that they "cannot" live without that person in their life. Some would call this dieing of a broken heart, but few doctors would accept that. Instead, thwy would call it something like morbid major depression.

My conclusion is that, whether we understand it or can explain it or not, the mind can be affected in various ways by conditions the person is subjected to and can affect the body in many ways in return. Therefore, although the Victorian doctors' ideas about brain fever may have been off-base regarding the mechanisms, their ideas about the overall effect were not far from the truth. Victorians may have had some odd ideas, but they were not stupid!
Blather. We're not talking about what people think - one quick glance at the Internet shows that people are idiots in all eras. The references are to what doctors of the day thought. And although the doctors of the day were not stupid, they were 99.7% ignorant about the actual functioning of the mind, the body, nutrition, and disease. We say they were wrong for the simple reason that they were wrong.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.