The plague epidemics in Right-bank Ukraine and south-western provinces of Russia at the turn of the 19th century were caused by deficiencies in maintaining social distance and inadequate crisis management. The inadequate social distancing was caused by ongoing wars and civil unrest. The first outbreaks of the plague occurred in the territory of the Turkish state, from where it spread to Right-bank Ukraine, as well as to the provinces of the Russian Empire as a result of mobility caused mainly by wars, trade and other phenomena causing population migration (such as mercenary work). After the annexation of the Black Sea territories to Russia, returning soldiers and sailors often unwittingly brought plague from the infected south to the cities and towns of central Russia. The spread of the plague epidemic was facilitated by the efforts of the Russian commanders to limit supply disruptions to the army fighting the Turks. With the effective work of the various branches of the modern administration and the centralized management of the crisis in Right-bank Ukraine, the outbreaks were quickly contained to only a few areas. These circumstances were even more evident in the southwestern provinces of Russia, with a strong central government and its local ties.

The article discusses the views of natural medicine advocates regarding smallpox vaccination, based on texts in the popular Polish natural cure magazine ‘Przewodnik Zdrowia’ (‘Health Guide’), published in Berlin in 1895–1914. The article also presents theses and opinions on vaccination in one of the pamphlets issued by the ‘Przewodnik Zdrowia’ publishing house. Advocates of naturopathy in many European countries and the United States formed the backbone of the 19th-century anti-vaccination movement, and strongly opposed vaccination, appealing primarily to health and legal arguments. The article sketches the main lines of argumentation against vaccination, formulated by proponents of naturopathic treatment in the Polish journal, in the context of antivaccination views and movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Already in the 19th century, researchers of the history of medicine tried to reinterpret the old pathogenesis and diagnostics by framing the descriptions of past epidemics within the framework of their own scientific discourse. However, this practice has sometimes led astray both then and now due to the incompatibility of modern medical language with historical sources, often of a narrative character. In addition, researchers in the field of historical science are often not qualified enough to correctly interpret the descriptions of the symptoms and course of the epidemic. On the other hand, representatives of medical sciences dealing with the past often misinterpret sources, cutting single pieces of information out of context and building a picture that is consistent with the current state of knowledge but inconsistent with the past. Given the persistence of this problem, which has been observable in the historiography of epidemics for many decades, it is worth investigating such cases in order to identify points that are particularly vulnerable to the risk of error.

In the epidemic-related texts printed by Gdańsk publishing houses in the 16th and 17th centuries, we can also find prescriptions. Over time, they gave way to short tax notes on anti-epidemic drugs attached to official forms. Ten publications from 1564–1663 were analyzed, and by comparing their contents, a list of 47 prescriptions and 144 drug names was compiled. The significant difference in the number of prescriptions and drugs was linked to the specificity of the Gdańsk pharmacy market in that period. On the example of works by Bartholomaeus Wagner, Jacob Schadius, Valerius Fidler, Johann Mathesius and prints signed by official city physicians, the evolution of anti-epidemic publications in Gdańsk was characterized and compared with the Gdańsk taxes then in force. The publications by Bartholomaeus Calckreuter and Gerbrand Hajo were cited as a context.

Kamieniec Podolski was the most important fortress of the Polish Republic, defending its southeastern border. Unfortunately, there were no barracks for soldiers in the fortress. Therefore, in the 1780s, their construction began. The project of Jan de Witte, an experienced and distinguished fortifier of the Kamieniec fortress, was rejected, and a new project was commissioned to a young but talented designer, Stanisław Zawadzki (1743–1806). He designed a five-wing building on a square plan, with a central wing that divided the interior into two courtyards. The building was first approved by the Polish king, Stanisław August Poniatowski, and only then they began to look for a site where it could be built. Unfortunately, it was not possible to find a suitable site, which was the reason for changing the location of the barracks several times. The construction of the barracks was entrusted to Hilary Szpilowski (1753–1827), who found many errors in the project. Zawadzki’s rare visits made necessary consultations impossible and forced Szpilowski to take independent decisions regarding changes in the building design. The Committee of the Military Department of the Perpetual Council rejected all of Szpilowski’s allegations. In this article, a detailed analysis of the solutions introduced at that time was carried out based on the preserved site maps and design drawings. It was shown that the project contained serious errors, especially the mismatch with the existing terrain, which generated a gigantic scope of earthworks, a lack of water supply and sewage disposal, and the lack of a tie beam reinforcing the building. Therefore, contrary to the opinion of the Committee of the Military Department of the Perpetual Council, the entire blame for the poorly designed barracks building and the resulting problems during construction should be placed on Stanisław Zawadzki, not Hilary Szpilowski.

This article aims to analyze the scientific activity of Józef Maksymilian Ossoliński (1754–1826) concerning his research on the literature and culture of the Polish Renaissance through the prism of the achievements of Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), one of the most important representatives of modern scientific, philosophical, and encyclopedic thought. The study is based on Ossoliński’s Wiadomości historyczno-krytyczne do dziejów literatury polskiej (Historical and Critical Notes on the History of Polish Literature) and Bayle’s Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (Historical and Critical Dictionary) – works that mark many years oftheir scholarly activity. The comparative method adopted in this paper makes it possible toindicate the shared features of their endeavours: the principles of editing sources (textualcriticism), the form of presenting research results, or the title of the publication. The articleconcludes that Ossoliński clearly modelled his Wiadomości historyczno-krytyczne on Bayle’swork and sheds new light on the reception of Bayle in Poland. It also reinforces the positionOssoliński’s work holds in the Polish textual criticism canon.

Grzegorz Michalik, Psychiatria w Polsce w latach 1945–1956. Nauka i opieka zdrowotna, Warszawa 2021, ss. 488.

Grzegorz Michalik’s study is located on the borderline of the history of science, history of ideas and social history. It is based on hitherto unknown sources and periodicals from 1945–1956. The work consists of ten chapters. First, the author outlines the history of psychiatry, starting from the end of the 18th century. He shows the development of this discipline in Poland during the partitions. Later he discusses the impact of psychoanalysis and eugenics on the development of psychiatry in the first half of the 20th century. Then he presents the specifics of the Soviet model of psychiatry and the doctrine of Pavlovism developed in the 1930s and 1940s, which, according to the author, should rather be labeled as ‘Pavlovism-Lysenkoism’. The main part of the book shows the stages of the Sovietization of Polish psychiatry, including the attitudes of Polish psychiatrists (from conformism to attempts at mimicry). Methods of treatment and conditions in psychiatric hospitals are also discussed. The author puts forward the thesis that before 1956 the problems in the psychiatric treatment had not been solved. Political changes in 1956 coincided with the invention of ground-breaking drugs, which marked the beginning of a new chapter in the history of psychiatry – psychopharmacology.