Plastic surgery in 17th century Europe. case study: Nicolae Milescu, the snub-nosed.

The rising and the existence of plastic and aesthetic surgery in early modern Europe did not have a specific pattern, but was completely different from one nation to another. Colleges of Physicians could only be found in some places in Europe; different Parliaments of Europe's nations did not always elevate being a surgeon to the dignity of a profession, and being a surgeon did not always come with corporate and municipal privileges, or with attractive stipends. Conversely, corporal punishments for treacherous surgeons were ubiquitous. Rhinoplasty falls into the category of what Ambroise Paré named "facial plastic surgery". The technique is a medical source from which many histories derive, one more fascinating than the other: the history of those whose nose was cut off (because of state betrayal, adultery, abjuration, or duelling with swords), the history of those who invented the surgery of nose reconstruction (e.g. SuSruta-samhita or Tagliacozzi?), the history of surgeries kept secret in early modern Europe (e.g. Tropea, Calabria, Leiden, Padua, Paris, Berlin), and so on. Where does the history of Nicolae Milescu the Snub-nosed fall in all of this? How much of this history do the Moldavian Chronicles record? Is there any "scholarly gossip" in the aristocratic and diplomatic environments at Constantinople? What exactly do the British ambassadors learn concerning Rhinoplasty when they meet Milescu? How do we "walk" within these histories, and why should we be interested at all? What is their stike for modernity? Such are the interrogations that this article seeks to provoke; its purpose is to question (and eventually, synchronise) histories, and not exclusively history, both in academic terms but also by reassessing the practical knowledge of the 17th century.

[Samuel Hahnemann: physician and adviser to the Princess Luise of Prussia from 1829 to 1835]. / Samuel Hahnemann: Arzt und Berater der Prinzessin Luise von Preussen in den Jahren 1829 bis 1835.

The nearly 500 pages of letters (edited and commented in a medical dissertation by the author), written by a Prussian Princess in the 19th century to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, provide a fairly complete patient history thanks to the homoeopathic method which obliges patients to observe and describe the complaints and the changes they experience during treatment. The achievements of Hahnemann's therapy were so remarkable that the patient engaged his disciple Dr.Julius Aegidi as her court physician during the years 1831 to 1834. In no other of Hahnemann's published case histories so many dreams are described. The diagnosis within the historical context could be hysteria, hypochondria and melancholy. The therapy consisted in the prescription of homoeopathic remedies but also, among other prescriptions, in taking placebos, application of mesmerism, diet and life style advice. Hahnemann was opposed to vaccination. The doctor-patient-relationship became very intense. It can be said that Hahnemann acted as a psychotherapist. As the Princess rather liked speaking about her complaints her compliance in describing symptoms was excellent. It was less so in taking verum, applying mesmerism and changing her lifestyle. The success of the treatment was limited by the Princess's court and family circumstances and probably by Hahnemann's restriction to psora theory and C30 potencies. The dissertation is the most extensive patient history from Hahnemann's medical practice ever published.