Comments on: Poison Trials by Alisha Rankin Review

By: Alexander Chin

Alexander Chin — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 03:34:25 +0000

This review points out that the main tension within the book is the social challenges that are associated with the poison trials. It explains how this process influenced the use of experimentation within science and the cultural implications of the experiment being an important source of knowledge. Although I believe this review does not fully show the tensions that existed behind the use of human subjects for the test of the poison trials. Within the book, The Poison Trails, Rankin explains numerous reasons why the trials could have been controversial, especially with the general populace, where the review only shows the perceived consensual nature of trials. Overall this is a good review of the book as it gives a good summary of the argument and addresses some of the flaws with the book.

By: William Dunn

William Dunn — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 02:28:28 +0000

This review picks out the essential parts of Rankin’s book and notes several weaknesses. The review shows how Rankin uses her extensive archival research to show how several princes and prelates and their physicians in the mid-16C used condemned men to test poisons, antidotes, and other substances. In order to carry out the trials the princes had to consider public opinion concerning the stigma associated with poisoning and existing practices for public execution. They also had to develop procedures for carrying out the trials. As the review notes, Rankin argues that this process is an example of cultural production.
Rankin argues that these poison trials can be seen as early examples of experiments and as indicative of a cultural practice that existed in Europe before Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Boyle and others began their more famous careers. Rankin’s contribution to the historiography is to show evidence of what could be construed as experimental-ish medical-ish practices about 100 years earlier than the currently accepted date (6). Her book argues that medicine, rather than a trailing beneficiary of Baconian empiricism deserves a seat at the table where the origins of experimental method are discussed.

By: Alexa Shipes

Alexa Shipes — Tue, 31 Jan 2023 21:35:19 +0000

I really liked this review. When I read about the fear that doctors had of being seen as poisoners, my mind went to the Hippocratic Oath, formulated in ancient Greece. The Oath’s principal tenet is “do no harm,” but over the centuries, exceptions have been made in the name of a “greater good.” The poison trials were seen as being for the “greater good,” when in reality, they only benefitted the aristocrats who sponsored the trials. The poison trials never involved antidotes to lead, commonly found in the water supply in major cities, nor did they take into account that plants such as hemlock were used in medicine as well as poison. Ordinary people were thus left in the dark about what herbal medicines were safe and which ones were deadly. If there was an intent to benefit humanity, then the doctors should have published their findings in a way that would have been accessible to anyone, even the illiterate.

By: Kerry Reed

Kerry Reed — Tue, 31 Jan 2023 20:46:30 +0000

Nice Review. I particularly appreciated your description of Rankin’s description on the methodology of poison trial procedure that preceded the administration of poison and antidotes. Also, I appreciated your nod to Foucault in the review. As you point out, this text is heavily influenced by poststructuralism, and Rankin did an excellent job analyzing the cultural, political, and religious ramifications of these 16th century physician experiments. At times though, I feel she did not do enough analyze of the structural quantifications behind the conducting of a poison trial. For example, I thought that the procedural differences in the Wolfgang/Tumler trial as compared to the ones conducted by Pope Clement VII were fascinating as they represent the limitations that different sovereigns saw on their own power. A religious justification came much easier for the pontiff (naturally) but I was curious as to whether the Holy Roman Empire’s political culture necessitated greater care in ensuring that proper jurisprudence took place.
In this same vein, I think I disagree with your notion that the perspective of the average citizen is not seen in these poison trials. Archival limitations aside, I think Rankin indirectly showed the average citizen’s opinion on poison trials through her analysis of the legal procedure that preceded a poison trial. If I understand the text correctly, ensuring that public benefit and religious beliefs were adhered to satisfied the state’s concerns that public outcry might emanate from the usurpation of the public’s traditional death rites and role in the condemned salvation. In this sense, the lack of archival information suggesting a public outcry or riot (at least portrayed in Rankin’s work) suggest the average citizen accepted the state’s rationalization for the poison trial.
Finally, I appreciate your contextualization of where Rankin’s work fits into current historiography on cultural practices. I have read Mintz but I am unfamiliar with Baptist’s work. I’ll have to check it out, thanks!
Great Review!