Anglo-Saxon and related entries in the OxfordDictionary of National Biography (2004) helen foxhall forbes, matthias ammon, elizabeth boyle, c onan t. d oyle, peter d. evan, rosa maria fera, paul gazzoli, helen imhoff, anna matheson, sophie rixon and levi roachThe Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), originally designated the New Dictionary of National Biography, was published in 2004 as a successor to the renowned Dictionary of National Biography (DNB), edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and itself published in sixty-three volumes between 1885 and 1900, with supplements. All of the subjects in the old DNB were retained for the ODNB; new entries were commissioned for a significant proportion of the existing subjects (including almost all of those falling within the early medieval period); and of course the opportunity was taken to add entries for a large number of new subjects. In its print version, the ODNB occupies sixty volumes, though it is unlikely to be found in that form outside reference libraries; most importantly, it is also available online, to subscribing institutions, with search facilities and other useful features. Like its most distinguished predecessor, the ODNB is already well established as an invaluable academic resource.It is not the purpose of this article to reflect on the criteria for inclusion, or on the mode of treatment, or to discuss how respects in which the old DNB had come to show its own age had necessitated the production of a modern successor blazing a new historiographical path for the twenty-first century. More mundanely, it is to register the existence of the quantity and range of entries in the ODNB on 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'related' subjects, and in this way to advertise its credentials as a massive collaborative achievement of a certain and indispensable kind. The ODNB includes re-assessments of familiar subjects, including Arthur (O. J. Padel), the Sutton Hoo burial (J. Campbell),
Yet, even as these modern epidemics were marked by heightened fears of foreigners, sharpened social divisions, and racialised policies of border control and quarantine, they could also be sources of solidarity, bringing together working classes, ethnic minorities, colonial subjects and others against state, medical or colonial authorities. While cholera, smallpox and plague are used to exemplify how epidemics could bond one group against another within society, other epidemics are shown to bond together society as a whole. In a chapter on American reactions to yellow fever, Cohn argues that the 1853 epidemic bred new forms of tolerance across class and racial lines, particularly in the American south. However, the outstanding example of unity-in-the-face-of-adversity emerges from the 1918-19 influenza pandemic. Cohn dedicates five chapters to the pandemic, tracing reactions in the United States, Canada, Britain, continental Europe and India. While epidemiologically catastrophic, Cohn's extensive newspaper analysis shows that, above all else, in every country surveyed, collective responses were characterised by 'compassion, volunteerism, and martyrdom' (p. 413), rather than blame or violence. This book exemplifies the great potential of new digital resources for disease history, but also some of the pitfalls. The sheer volume of reactions catalogued and compared is impressive and clearly demonstrates Cohn's central claim that responses within and between epidemics varied extensively. But there is comparatively less in the way of explanation for why such variation existed. A mixture of biological and cultural factors is identified. On the one hand, it is suggested that reactions could stem from the particular etiological, clinical or epidemiological characteristics of a disease; on the other hand, they could stem from particular meanings signified by a disease, the types of people associated with it, the preventive measures employed or the authorities tasked with their implementation. The conclusion that there are 'no easy answers' (p. 539) rings true, but this this not altogether satisfying. Historians of medicine and disease have developed fine-grained contextual analyses of why epidemics became culturally, ideologically and politically charged when and where they did. At turns, Epidemics delivers such analysis, but it is overshadowed by an approach that seeks to broadly delineate epidemics according to those that did or did not spark blame (or compassion). While this approach makes it possible to sift through and organise a vast array of material, the reader is left searching for why, as Cohn suggests, the diseased were generally not attacked in the ancient world, why they were in medieval (plague) and early modern (syphilis) worlds, and why some were (cholera) and were not (influenza) in the modern world. The tension within Epidemics between its breath-taking synthesis of digital sources and its narrow analytical framework makes it difficult to judge what its overall impact will be on the historiography of epid...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.