Jenner's smallpox vaccine. The riddle of vaccinia virus and its origin

descending through increasingly exteriorized grades of expression. The distinction between language and speech is contained within this framework, and much more besides. The subject of logos was considered too philosophical to fall within the scope of the book (p. 40), but the fact that its omission led to such a misconception suggests that the scope was somewhat too narrow, since medicine and philosophy were intimately linked throughout the period, and since the author herself inevitably makes many statements of philosophical bearing. For the same reason the scant mention of St. Augustine is inadequate, given his central importance in the development of western theories of speech. On p. 102, Critchley's failure to find "reference to speechlessness in the Kitdb al-Hawi or Continens of Rhazes" is noted, but not corrected. Rhazes does refer to speechlessness in terms of differential diagnosis, as well as to other speech impediments.5 On p. 163 one reads: "Unexplained and seemingly unexplored by Bernard [of Gordon] was the question why humidity was believed to occlude only the nerves of motion ... and not the nerves of sensation. . .". But Bernard did explain this: speech (an action) is more difficult and requires more energy than taste (a sense, therefore a passion), and so is more easily disrupted.6 Insofar as Dr. O'Neill aims to convince us of the existence of "a coherent body of thought about speech and its impairments" prior to 1600, she has succeeded. But the actual analysis of this thought, and particularly the general characterizations of its various stages, are less successful. Evidently the narrative approach was felt to be the best means of introducing the subject in palatable form-an idea which in itself has much merit. And a strictly chronological order seems to offer the most convenient possibilities for narrative development. But under the circumstances this approach seems to have virtually forced the imposition of a historical dynamic which refuses to arise naturally out of the material and is not about to do so without a great deal of further study. It is claimed, for example, that growing conflict between theology and natural philosophy/medicine affected views on speech during this period. This raises important questions, but the attempted demonstration is naive in the extreme, both historio-graphically and philosophically. On the whole, chapters 8 and 9, covering the eleventh to fourteenth centuries, seem the most solid. Passages of narrative interest and valuable insight can be found …